Prominent Nigerian politician Nasir El-Rufai is facing intense scrutiny and demands for concrete evidence after making explosive public allegations regarding the unlawful hacking of the National Security Adviser's communications.

Former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai has ignited a political firestorm in Nigeria following his audacious claims that the communications of the National Security Adviser (NSA) were unlawfully compromised. The allegations, broadcast on national television, have triggered a fierce debate regarding the burden of proof and the dangerous implications of wielding unverified intelligence as a political weapon.

This controversy strikes at the very heart of institutional integrity and democratic stability. When senior statesmen casually deploy accusations of top-tier espionage without substantiating evidence, they actively erode public trust in the state's security apparatus, creating a vacuum of paranoia that destabilizes the political environment.

The Danger of Unsubstantiated Surveillance Claims

As detailed by political analyst Jacob Edi, the principle of *onus probandi*—the burden of proof—is foundational to a functioning democracy. El-Rufai’s failure to disclose the identities of the alleged hackers or provide verifiable data transforms his claims from whistleblowing into potentially malicious political theater. Edi’s critique underscores a profound moral paradox: El-Rufai, previously criticized for his own high-handed executive actions, is now attempting to position himself as a victim of state overreach.

For political observers in East Africa, this scenario is deeply familiar. Election cycles in Kenya and Uganda are frequently marred by murky allegations of "Deep State" surveillance, phone tapping, and server hacking. The Nigerian drama serves as a cautionary tale for the region: allowing politicians to weaponize unproven surveillance claims without demanding rigorous evidentiary backing inevitably poisons the electoral and governance processes.

• The Core Allegation: El-Rufai claimed unauthorized individuals successfully intercepted the communications of Nigeria's top security official.
• The Democratic Demand: Analysts insist that El-Rufai must submit his claims to transparent, institutional scrutiny to avoid destabilizing the state.
• The Hypocrisy Factor: Critics point to El-Rufai's own controversial human rights record while serving as governor to question his current motives.

Accountability and the Rule of Law

The Nigerian government’s response to this crisis is critical. It must avoid partisan vindictiveness and instead focus on establishing the absolute truth through due process. If the NSA was indeed compromised, it represents a catastrophic national security failure requiring immediate prosecution. Conversely, if the claims are fabricated, the purveyors of such dangerous misinformation must face legal consequences.

Democracies require immense vigilance to survive, but that vigilance must be anchored in objective reality, not political grievance. The selective invocation of the rule of law allows powerful actors to manipulate public perception while avoiding personal accountability for their own past administrative transgressions.

"The rule of law cannot be invoked selectively; moral consistency cannot be seasonal," Jacob Edi astutely observed, laying down a formidable challenge to El-Rufai and political elites across the continent.