LEADERSHIP’s editorial of 4 August 2026 opens with the right instinct, that the charges against Mallam Nasir El-Rufai “remain allegations, not proven facts,” and that he is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and then spends the rest of the piece quietly withdrawing that concession. The paper does not argue that Mallam El-Rufai’s cancer is fabricated. It does not argue that the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission’s version of events is complete. It argues, in effect, that because the underlying charge sheet is serious, the medical claim deserves less benefit of the doubt than it would if it were otherwise. That is not scrutiny. It is the transfer of suspicion from one file to another and treating the gravity of an accusation on one question as though it settles an entirely different one. This reply does not ask readers to take that on faith. It asks them to look at the fuller record LEADERSHIP’s editorial compressed into a single disputed sentence: “the authenticity of the National Hospital’s medical report was itself in dispute.” The bare facts, as reported and as ICPC itself has confirmed in a public statement, are these: On 29 June 2026, Justice D. H. Khobo of the Kaduna State High Court dismissed El-Rufai’s third application for bail on medical grounds, in the corruption case brought by ICPC over the Kaduna Light Rail contract, the severance allowance, the World Bank loan funds and the CCTV award. The defence had tendered a report claiming metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer requiring Lutetium-177 PSMA therapy. ICPC countered with a letter from the hospital’s Chief Medical Director, Professor Muhammad Raji Mahmud, stating that an electronic records search had found no hospital number, patient file, billing record or consultation history for El-Rufai, and that the report had not been authorised by hospital management. Justice Khobo held that a document disowned by its issuing institution could not be grounds for the “exceptional relief” of bail. LEADERSHIP’s account of this is accurate as far as it goes. What the editorial does not tell its readers is what happened next, because it happened after the editorial’s own deadline had less to do with print cycles than with a fact ICPC’s investigation itself surfaced: the medical report was not anonymous, and the man who wrote it did not deny writing it. Dr. Bello Abubakar, a professor, Chief Consultant Clinical and Radiation Oncologist at the National Hospital, Abuja, gave a voluntary statement to ICPC in which he confirmed authoring the medical report and denied any part in a forgery scheme. His account, delivered through counsel, was more textured than the hospital’s institutional letter allowed for: he said El-Rufai had first been registered as a patient at the National Hospital around 2005, that he personally attended to him on an informal basis on perhaps four occasions between 2017 and 2025, consultations of the kind senior consultants routinely extend to high-profile patients, and that he saw him again on three occasions in June and July 2026, while El-Rufai was already in ICPC custody. Two of those consultations, on his account, took place inside the ICPC’s own facility, in the presence of the Commission’s own medical personnel; a third took place at the National Hospital itself. If that account survives cross-examination, it reframes the entire question. An electronic-records search returning no result is not necessarily evidence that a patient was never a patient in a health facility, particularly when the National Hospital’s patient records were destroyed in a fire incident some years back. It is considerably weaker evidence that no doctor-patient relationship existed at all, particularly where the treating physician, not an anonymous forger, but a named, identifiable, senior consultant now facing his own jeopardy for coming forward, says the relationship was real. The doctor-patient relationship may be informally documented but the records show that the relationship continued inside the walls of the very agency that says it found no record of it. A commentator is entitled to doubt Dr. Abubakar’s account. LEADERSHIP is not entitled to write as though it does not exist, four weeks after it entered the public record. None of this resolves the underlying dispute. Dr. Abubakar is himself now facing ICPC charges over the same document, and the presumption of innocence he is owed applies with equal force to him; a statement given under investigative pressure, however candid it reads, is not proof, and it will be tested, as it should be, in open court. But “the medical report was disowned” and “the doctor who wrote it says the patient was real, just informally treated” are two different sentences, and only one of them appeared in LEADERSHIP’s editorial. A newspaper that devotes a full page to how carefully it weighed the ICPC’s version owed its readers at least a sentence on the other version. The
Don't miss out on breaking stories and in-depth articles.
