Prof Lawrence ETIM
EL-RUFAI agreed on TV that he illegally listens to Ribadu’s phone calls, but he may not be found guilty: Here is why.
1) BELOW ARE ASPECTS OF WHAT RIBADU REPORTEDLY SAID ON CHANNELS TV:
“… we listen to their calls. Someone tapped his (Ribadu’s) calls. I know the person who taps his calls.…”
If, as alleged, a public figure openly admitted on television to intercepting another person’s telephone conversations, the natural reaction would be to conclude that a crime has been confessed. However, the legal position is more nuanced. A public statement – even one that appears self-incriminating – does NOT automatically translate into a criminal conviction.
Let us examine the issues logically and in proper legal context.
1. INTERCEPTION OF TELEPHONE CALLS IS A Criminal OFFENCE
Intercepting anyone’s phone calls without lawful authorization is indeed a criminal offence in Nigeria. The law protects the privacy of communications, and unauthorized surveillance may violate both statutory provisions and constitutional rights.
If a person truly tapped another individual’s phone without a court order or other lawful authority, that conduct would constitute an offence.
2. FAILURE TO REPORT A CRIME
El-Rufai reportedly claimed that he knew someone who had been intercepting Ribadu’s calls. If that statement were accurate, and if the act constituted a crime, then knowingly failing to report such criminal conduct may itself raise legal and ethical questions. However, even here, liability depends on the specific statutory framework and the duty imposed by law.
3. A TELEVISION STATEMENT IS NOT THE SAME AS A COURTROOM CONFESSION
This is a critical distinction.
The alleged statement was not made in a courtroom, under oath, and subject to cross-examination. A confession made casually in a media interview is not automatically treated as conclusive proof of guilt. For a confession to ground a conviction, it must meet legal standards of admissibility, voluntariness, and reliability.
Had such an admission been formally made in court, clearly and unequivocally, it could potentially have served as strong evidence against the maker. But statements made during media appearances are often subject to interpretation, context, tone, and even rhetorical exaggeration.
4. THE “JOKE” OR RHETORICAL DEFENCE
As a matter of defence, El-Rufai could argue that his statement was metaphorical, sarcastic, or made in jest. It is not a criminal offence to crack a joke on television. The prosecution would therefore have to prove that the statement was a factual admission of criminal conduct – not mere political rhetoric or hyperbole.
Courts do not convict on ambiguity. Criminal liability must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
5. THE ROLE OF THE PROSECUTION AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF
As the matter had already been taken to court by the DSS (formerly SSS), the burden of proof will rest squarely on the prosecution.
It is trite law that he who alleges must prove. A TELEVISED STATEMENT, STANDING ALONE, IS INSUFFICIENT TO SECURE A CONVICTION UNLESS CORROBORATED BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. The prosecution would need to demonstrate, with admissible evidence, that:
a) An unlawful interception actually occurred;
b) The accused authorized, carried out, or participated in the act;
c) The interception lacked lawful justification.
This could require technical evidence, witness testimony, forensic analysis, or documentary proof. Mere public remarks, without more, rarely satisfy the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
6. THE LIKELY LEGAL OUTCOME
Without concrete and admissible evidence showing that at least one unlawful interception took place and that the accused was responsible, or the accused knew but failed to report, the court would be bound to acquit.
In criminal law, suspicion – even strong suspicion – is not proof.
Thus, even if a public statement appears self-incriminating, the absence of corroborating evidence may result in the accused walking out of court a free man.
7. MY CONCLUSION
The key lesson here is not political but legal:
Public controversy does not equal criminal liability. In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, conviction requires proof – clear, credible, and legally admissible proof.
Without that, the presumption of innocence prevails.
Prof ETIM is a fishery scientist
