Ribadu-El- Rufai feud: bitter politics or raising security concerns?

By Amos Aar

Pressure appears to be mounting on former Kaduna State governor Nasir El-Rufai to substantiate, or retract, his explosive allegation that a highly toxic chemical was procured within Nigeria’s security architecture.

But the federal government’s response has also triggered concerns about whether the focus is shifting from forensic truth to political containment.

At the heart of the controversy is a troubling question: if the alleged importation of thallium sulphate, a substance widely known for its lethal toxicity, ever occurred, the potential public health and national security implications for millions of Nigerians could be severe. Yet, critics say what has emerged so far looks more like a legal duel than a transparent scientific investigation.

Nigeria’s already charged political atmosphere took another dramatic turn when the Office of the National Security Adviser formally challenged El-Rufai to produce evidence backing his claim.

The move has broadened the rift between him and National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu while igniting intense legal and public scrutiny.

In a February 13 letter, the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) flatly denied any involvement in acquiring thallium sulphate and said the allegation had been referred to the State Security Service for investigation.

The letter, signed by Brigadier General O.M. Adesina, stressed that the office “has neither procured nor initiated any process for the purchase of such material and has no intention of doing so,” while inviting El-Rufai and other knowledgeable parties to assist investigators.

However, even before any evidence has publicly surfaced, commentators and legal observers are questioning the sequencing of the government’s response. Their argument is that allegations involving a substance capable of mass poisoning ordinarily demand an independent forensic probe, including import records, customs trails; laboratory analysis and chain-of-custody reviews, before the conversation tilts toward criminal prosecution.

The controversy gained further traction on the Arise TV Morning Show, where veteran broadcaster Reuben Abati unpacked the political backstory of the feud, portraying it as the dramatic collapse of a once-close alliance.

“As far as I’m concerned, these two people were like Siamese twins before”, Abati recalled. He reminded viewers that Ribadu was once “his number one man,” suggesting the present hostility reflects a deep personal and political rupture rather than a routine policy disagreement.

Providing further context, Abati noted that El-Rufai had been among the original architects of the ruling party and a strong supporter of President Bola Tinubu’s emergence in 2023. Relations reportedly soured after El-Rufai’s ministerial nomination failed to clear security screening.

“The backstory,” Abati explained, “is that he holds the NSA, his good friend Nuhu Ribadu, responsible for whatever may have gone on at the back end which ended up not seeing him on the list.”
Since then, he observed, the former governor has grown increasingly critical of the administration.

The dispute escalated after El-Rufai alleged during a televised interview that he and unnamed others listened to conversations from Ribadu’s phone after it was allegedly tapped by a third party, a claim that triggered legal action from the State Security Service.

Charges filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja accused the former governor of admitting to unlawful interception of the NSA’s communications under provisions of the Cybercrimes Act and the Nigerian Communications Act.

But the prosecution itself is now facing legal scrutiny. Human rights lawyer Enibehe Effiong, in a Facebook post, pointed to “significant defects” in the government’s case.

“Looking at this charge, I have a few issues with it,” Effiong wrote, arguing first that “there is no entity known to law as Department of State Services (DSS), the National Security Agencies Act only recognizes the State Security Service (SSS).”

He further questioned whether the agency possesses prosecutorial powers and whether El-Rufai’s televised remarks could legally qualify as an extrajudicial confession.
“For a statement to be extrajudicial and confessional, it has to be under caution. He didn’t say he wiretapped the NSA; he said someone else did and told him”, Effiong argued.

The lawyer added: “I am not a fan of El-Rufai, but this charge appears problematic in law. Time will tell.”

Still, government officials maintain that the proper step is for El-Rufai to provide verifiable evidence to security agencies. From their standpoint, unsubstantiated claims involving sensitive national security matters can themselves generate public panic and institutional distrust.

Yet, public anxiety persists for a different reason: the inherent danger associated with the chemical at the centre of the controversy.

A public health analyst, Dr Stephen Obaje, notes that thallium compounds, even in small quantities, can cause severe poisoning, organ failure and environmental contamination if mishandled.

In a country already grappling with fragile emergency response systems, any confirmed illicit importation would represent a serious national risk.

Abati, while not directly endorsing either camp, hinted at the heavy political undertones surrounding the dispute. He observed that El-Rufai now positions himself as an opposition figure and has openly declared that the ruling party “will not come back to power,” a posture that inevitably shapes official perceptions of his claims.

Beyond the courtroom drama, the episode has reopened aroused questions about due process, intelligence oversight and the perceived politicization of security institutions.

Some commentators argue that the credibility of the state would be better served by a transparent, science-driven investigation that either conclusively debunks the allegation or exposes any wrongdoing.

A public affairs commentator who preferred anonymity went further, suggesting the temporary stepping aside of relevant officials “to preserve institutional integrity and public confidence” pending the outcome of investigations a proposal that has itself stirred debate.

For now, the burden formally rests on El-Rufai to substantiate his claims. But the larger public interest question remains unresolved: whether Nigeria’s security system will treat the toxic-chemical allegation primarily as a political quarrel, or as a potential public safety threat requiring rigorous forensic investigation.

Until that question is convincingly answered, the feud between two once-allied power brokers may continue to cast a long and uneasy shadow over Nigeria’s national security conversation.