The Department of State Services (DSS) has formally arraigned Nasir El-Rufai, the former Governor of Kaduna State, before the Federal High Court in Abuja. The arraignment, presided over by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, was based on a five-count amended charge alleging a breach of national security. During the proceedings, El-Rufai entered a plea of not guilty to all charges leveled against him.

The legal proceedings saw significant procedural developments. Oluwole Aladedoye, counsel for the DSS, informed the court that the purpose of the session was for the defendant to take his plea. He further stated that an amended five-count charge had been filed on April 13, and requested that it replace the earlier three-count charge. El-Rufai's counsel, Oluwole Iyamu, confirmed receipt of the amended charge and did not raise any objections to its substitution, leading the trial judge to strike out the initial three-count charge.

Following El-Rufai's not-guilty plea, the prosecution sought three consecutive dates for the trial. However, the defense vehemently opposed this request, citing concerns that such a schedule would not be in their client's best interest. They highlighted that El-Rufai had been in the custody of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), which could impede access to him and thus hinder adequate trial preparation.

Regarding the issue of bail, the defense informed the court about a bail application that had been filed on February 17. An initial anomaly involving a missing further affidavit in support of the application was addressed when the court briefly stood down the matter, after which the affidavit was successfully located in the court file. Notably, the DSS indicated that it did not oppose the bail application.

A contentious point in the proceedings arose when the prosecution filed an application requesting an order to conceal the identities of two witnesses slated to testify in the case. The DSS sought that the witnesses' identities not be disclosed in public court records and that pseudonyms be employed during the trial. The prosecution's rationale was rooted in concerns that the witnesses' families could be susceptible to attacks from individuals sympathetic to the defendant, implying a potential risk to their safety.

The defense, however, strongly opposed the prosecution's application for witness anonymity, urging the court to dismiss it. They argued that it is a fundamental constitutional right for an accused person to confront and know their accusers. Furthermore, the defense contended that there was no substantive evidence presented to suggest that El-Rufai posed any threat or commanded a 'cult-like' following that would justify such an extraordinary measure. The defense also cautioned the court that granting blanket anonymity to witnesses could severely prejudice the case against their client, undermining the principles of a fair trial.

In addition to these arguments, the defense made an application requesting an order directing the prosecution to provide them with proof of evidence. This was deemed essential for enabling them to adequately prepare for the upcoming trial. The prosecution, in turn, opposed this request, asserting that the materials sought were unrelated to the processes it had already filed. The defense also informed the court about its prior filing of an application to quash the charges. However, legal arguments were subsequently raised challenging the permissibility of bringing such an application after a plea had already been taken. In a written address, the prosecution urged the court to dismiss this application for lacking merit.

The Federal High Court has adjourned the case until May 18 for the continuation of the hearing, signaling further legal battles ahead in this high-profile national security breach case.