The Judicial Facade: When The Grant Of Bail Becomes Its Own Denial

A legal commentator has taken issue with a previous analysis of the alleged illegal interception of the National Security Adviser's telephone and the subsequent bail conditions imposed on Malam Nasir El-Rufai. The critique centers on the assertion that El-Rufai admitted to wiretapping in an Arise TV interview, a claim the commentator argues is a misinterpretation.

According to the commentator, the relevant portion of the Arise News interview shows El-Rufai stating that someone had tapped Mr. Ribadu's phone and reported the NSA's order for detention to him. This, the commentator contends, is a report about being surveilled, not a confession of conducting surveillance. The piece stresses that while a court might examine such a statement, a commentator cannot simply declare it a confession and build a case on that assertion.

“

At roughly the 11:30–11:46 mark, El-Rufai’s own words were that someone had tapped Ribadu’s phone and reported to him that the NSA had ordered his detention. That is a claim about being surveilled, not a confession of surveilling.

The article highlights the legal distinction between a statement and a confession, noting that Nigerian law recognizes extra-judicial confessions but requires careful construction of the words used and their context. An ambiguous statement, the commentator argues, does not become a confession based on a reader's impression. This distinction is crucial, as the interpretation of El-Rufai's words directly impacts the justification for the stringent bail conditions imposed.

“

An ambiguous statement does not become a confession because a commentator characterises it as one.