The Court of Appeal in Kaduna has overturned a previous judgment involving former governor Nasir El-Rufai, citing a violation of his right to fair hearing and directing that the case be heard afresh.

In a unanimous decision delivered on March 17, a three-member panel of the appellate court nullified the earlier ruling of the Federal High Court, describing the entire process as flawed.

The court found that El-Rufai was not properly served with a hearing notice during the initial proceedings, an omission it said undermined the legitimacy of the case. According to the judges, proper service of court documents is a fundamental requirement that gives a court the authority to hear a matter.

The panel rejected claims that the notice was sent via text message to his lawyer, noting inconsistencies in the phone numbers presented and the absence of verifiable proof. It also criticised reliance on verbal claims by a court official without supporting documents.

As a result, the court ruled that El-Rufai was denied the opportunity to respond to key filings, including counter-affidavits used against him, thereby breaching his constitutional rights.
The justices further faulted the lower court for proceeding with the case too quickly, including delivering decisions on the same day certain filings were accepted, without allowing the legally required time for response.

The case stems from a probe launched by the Kaduna State House of Assembly into the financial dealings of the state government during El-Rufai’s tenure from 2015 to 2023. An ad hoc committee reportedly investigated loans, contracts, and other financial activities, later indicting the former governor over an alleged N400 billion fraud.

El-Rufai, however, challenged the process, arguing that although several individuals were invited by the panel, he was not given the opportunity to appear or defend himself before the recommendations were made.
Dissatisfied with how the matter was handled at the Federal High Court, particularly its decision to transfer the case to a state high court, he filed an appeal.

Ruling in his favour, the appellate court declared the earlier judgment null and void, ordering a fresh hearing of the case before a different judge of the Federal High Court. It also directed all parties involved to bear their own legal costs, effectively resetting the legal battle.