By Elder Abraham Amah

Public conversations about wiretapping often drift into technical arguments about phones, encryption, and brands.

Yet the most troubling aspect of the current discourse has nothing to do with devices.

The phone allegedly wiretapped has not even been identified.

References to iPhones merely reflect what many ordinary citizens use.

The real issue is far more serious and far more dangerous.

It is the reported admission by Nasir El-Rufai, a former governor of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, that he wiretapped the phone of the National Security Adviser.

If this admission is taken at face value, it is not a joke, not political bravado, and not an offhand comment.

It amounts to a confession of a grave crime against the Nigerian state.

In any serious democracy, such a statement would immediately trigger alarm within the security architecture of the country. It would demand investigation, clarification, and, where necessary, prosecution. It is not the sort of claim that should be laughed away or treated as political entertainment.

It is important to return the discussion to first principles. Wiretapping is not simply a technical act. It is an exercise of sovereign authority. In constitutional systems, the interception of communications is permitted only in the narrowest of circumstances and only by designated state institutions acting strictly under the law, with proper authorization and oversight. Outside that framework, interception is illegal. It does not matter how it is done. It does not matter whether a phone is highly secured or technologically sophisticated. What matters is authority. Without lawful authority, wiretapping is criminal.

When the target of such unlawful interception is the National Security Adviser, the gravity of the offence increases exponentially. The National Security Adviser is not an ordinary public official. That office sits at the centre of intelligence coordination, national defence planning, and the protection of the state. Any unauthorized access to the communications of that office constitutes a direct breach of national security. It is an attack on the institutional nerve centre of the republic.

This is why the language must be clear and unambiguous. An admission of unlawfully wiretapping the National Security Adviser is nothing less than the language and posture of hostile actors who seek to undermine state security through illegal surveillance. Such conduct mirrors the methods employed by terrorists and subversive elements who operate outside the law to weaken the state. This is not an insult. It is a description of conduct. Terrorism, at its core, involves unlawful actions that threaten national security and public order. Unauthorized surveillance of a nation’s top security official fits squarely within that logic.

It is therefore deeply disturbing that a man of El-Rufai’s standing would associate himself with such conduct. Former governors are not novices to power. They understand the sensitivity of security information. They know how fragile national stability can be. They are expected to embody restraint, discipline, and respect for institutions even after leaving office. When such individuals speak lightly or boastfully about acts that would constitute serious crimes if committed by any other citizen, they erode public trust and weaken the moral authority of the state.

This matter goes beyond personal rivalry or partisan disagreement. It strikes at the heart of the rule of law. No individual, regardless of past office or perceived influence, has the right to operate outside the legal framework of the republic. The moment powerful figures begin to treat national security laws as optional, the state itself becomes vulnerable. Today it is an alleged wiretapping of the National Security Adviser. Tomorrow it could be judges, military commanders, journalists, or political opponents.

Lawlessness does not stop where it begins.

That is why this issue requires serious investigation and, where the facts so warrant, prosecution. The appropriate security and law enforcement agencies must establish whether any interception occurred, how it was carried out, who authorized it, who had access to any information obtained, and whether national security was compromised. If the admission was false or exaggerated, it must be publicly corrected, because false claims of this nature are themselves destabilizing. If it was true, then the law must take its course without fear or favour.

The legal framework is clear. The Constitution guarantees the privacy of communications. Statutes criminalize unlawful interception and surveillance. Where national security officials are involved, offences may extend to conspiracy, abuse of power, and acts prejudicial to state security. These laws exist because the damage caused by such breaches is not merely personal. It is institutional. It affects trust in government, confidence in security agencies, and the stability of the state itself.

There is also a broader moral question at stake. Public officials shape norms long after they leave office. When a former governor appears to trivialize conduct that would attract severe punishment for ordinary citizens, it sends a dangerous message that power excuses illegality. That message must be rejected firmly. The rule of law is not selective. It either binds everyone or it binds no one.

Ultimately, this controversy has nothing to do with phones, brands, or encryption. Technology is a sideshow. The central issue is discipline, legality, and respect for the institutions of the state. Secure devices cannot compensate for lawless behaviour. No phone can protect a country whose leaders, past or present, choose to operate outside the law.

If Nigeria is to be taken seriously as a constitutional democracy, matters of this nature cannot be brushed aside. Unauthorized wiretapping of the National Security Adviser is unacceptable, criminal, and a profound breach of national security. Silence, laughter, or political deflection in the face of such an allegation would amount to complicity by indifference.

History teaches that nations are rarely destroyed by external enemies alone. More often, they are weakened from within when those entrusted with power abandon restraint and disregard the law. This moment therefore calls for sobriety, accountability, and fidelity to the constitution. The law must speak clearly, and it must speak to everyone.

*Amah, a philosopher and public affairs analyst, contributed this piece from Abuja