El-Rufai’s bogus medical report and justice

By Kingsley Mutuwa

Few  principles are more fundamental to the rule of law than the proposition that every citizen is equal before the law. That principle is tested most severely not when ordinary people appear before the courts, but when politically influential individuals do.

Just recently, former Kaduna State governor Nasir El-Rufai suffered a major setback in his latest bid for bail after the Kaduna State High Court rejected the medical report he relied upon, ruling that it lacked credibility. According to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), El-Rufai had presented a document purportedly issued by the National Hospital, Abuja, claiming he was suffering from advanced metastatic prostate cancer that required treatment unavailable in Nigeria.

However, the anti-graft agency tendered evidence from the hospital’s management stating that exhaustive checks of its records found no evidence that El-Rufai had ever been treated there and that the report was neither issued nor authorised by the institution. Hence, Justice Darius Khobo who presided over the bail application, held that the report could not serve as the basis for granting bail on medical grounds. The ruling effectively rejected what the ICPC described as a false medical report allegedly deployed to secure temporary freedom.

While the court denied the application, it still directed the ICPC to grant El-Rufai unrestricted access to his personal doctors and to escort him to any specialised medical facility within Nigeria whenever necessary, ensuring that genuine health needs would not impede the course of justice.

Bail applications based on medical grounds are not uncommon. Nigerian courts have, over the years, granted such applications where genuine medical emergencies exist and where credible evidence establishes that detention would pose unacceptable health risks. The law recognises humanity. It recognises illness. It recognises that detention should not become a death sentence. It also recognises that there are people that would go to great lengths to manipulate leeway of the law. That is precisely what judicial fairness looks like. It protects the defendant’s health without compromising the integrity of judicial proceedings. Indeed, Justice Khobo’s ruling appears to have struck an appropriate balance. It was El-Rufai’s third bail application in the criminal case filed against him by the ICPC.

Nigeria has witnessed countless examples of powerful officeholders who, after leaving office, suddenly discover a newfound appreciation for legal technicalities, constitutional protections and judicial discretion. The latest courtroom episode El-Rufai is reminder that the statue of the blind-folded Lady Justice who beholds the sword as she strives to balance the scale, strikes for objectivity. As it should be.

Unfortunately, some people and interests have sought to cry victimisation. It is indeed sad that there is wide assumption among certain Nigerian political elites that legal rules should somehow become flexible whenever they themselves stand in the dock. For years, El-Rufai cultivated the image of an uncompromising public official. He projected toughness, frequently criticised opponents, dismissed complaints and portrayed himself as someone prepared to make difficult decisions without apology. Whether one agreed with his policies or not, that image became central to his political identity. Ironically, it is now that same image that raises uncomfortable questions.

Public officials who spend years demanding accountability from others cannot reasonably expect a different legal standard when accountability eventually reaches their own doorstep. The courtroom is not a political rally, a television interview or a social media battlefield where narratives overwhelm facts. The court is a place where evidence matters. If the court concludes that evidence presented in support of an application cannot be relied upon, then no amount of political stature should substitute for evidential credibility.

Nigeria’s justice system already suffers from widespread public distrust. Many citizens believe influential defendants routinely exploit loopholes, obtain endless adjournments or deploy every conceivable legal strategy to delay their trials. Consequently, whenever prominent defendants appear to pursue legal arguments unsupported by reliable evidence, they inadvertently reinforce public cynicism about elite attitudes toward justice. That is unhealthy for democracy. It is equally unhealthy for the reputation of any defendant genuinely seeking to establish innocence through due process.

Like every Nigerian standing trial, El-Rufai remains entitled to the presumption of innocence. The charges against him have yet to be determined by the court, and only the judicial process can ultimately pronounce guilt or innocence. But constitutional rights are accompanied by corresponding responsibilities, one of which is, approaching the court with utmost candour. Applications supported by questionable documentation do not merely weaken a litigant’s case. They risk undermining confidence in judicial processes themselves. El-Rufai knows this or is expected to know this but maybe like some scrupulous persons, he may want to exploit the benevolence of the court.

Too many public officials appear to believe institutions exist to serve them rather than the other way around. While in office, they exercise enormous governmental authority. After leaving office, they often expect extraordinary institutional accommodation. El-Rufai has long been regarded as one of Nigeria’s most combative political figures. Admirers describe him as fearless. Critics view him as confrontational. Regardless of where one stands, few would dispute that he has often courted controversy throughout his public career. That reputation now risks evolving into something less flattering. A political leader known for taking uncompromising positions should equally demonstrate willingness to submit fully to legal processes when circumstances change.

Strength of character is measured not merely by exercising authority but by accepting lawful restraint. History remembers leaders not only by how they wielded power but by how they responded when power no longer insulated them. There is also a broader lesson for Nigeria’s political class. The era when influential officeholders could assume immunity after leaving public office appears to be steadily diminishing. Anti-corruption agencies, courts and investigative institutions are increasingly being called upon to scrutinise former governors, ministers and senior officials. That trend, if conducted fairly and without political persecution, should be welcomed. Democracy requires accountability. That is how mature democracies function.

What should never happen is for political influence to distort judicial standards. The Kaduna court’s ruling sends precisely the opposite signal. It indicates that documentary evidence must withstand scrutiny regardless of the applicant’s identity. That should reassure Nigerians rather than alarm them. If anything, the ruling demonstrates that courts remain capable of distinguishing between legitimate humanitarian concerns and applications whose evidence proves unsustainable.

Ultimately, courts should decide cases based on evidence. And any judicial discretion should be earned through credible applications. And most importantly, no public office, either past or present, should be conferred entitlement to preferential treatment. Accountability of the legal system and processes must be a watchword.

The true measure of respect for the rule of law is not how loudly one invokes it when convenient. It is how faithfully one submits to it when inconvenient. That is the standard every Nigerian should expect, not only from El-Rufai, but from every public official who has enjoyed the privilege of serving the Nigerian people.