WHY WE ASKED NDLEA TO INVESTIGATE BELLO EL-RUFAI OVER ALLEGED COCAINE USE – CONSTITUENTS. (PHOTO).

 

Why We Asked NDLEA To Investigate Bello El-Rufai Over Alleged Cocaine Use – Constituents

Some constituents of Kaduna North Federal Constituency have explained their decision to petition the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), requesting an independent assessment and investigation of a publicly reported allegation of cocaine use involving their federal representative, Mohammed Bello El-Rufai.

The petition, dated September 8, 2026, was signed on behalf of the constituents by Abubakar Hayatu of Kabala Ward and Musa Tukur of Unguwar Gaji Ward. It followed allegations made on social media on August 29 by Bashir El-Rufai, the lawmaker’s biological brother.

Several media organisations have reported the social media exchange, while also noting that the allegations have not been independently verified.

In their petition addressed to the NDLEA Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Gen. Buba Marwa (rtd), the constituents said they were not asking the agency to presume the lawmaker’s guilt or subject him to an unlawful compulsory test. Rather, they said they wanted the matter independently assessed to establish whether there were lawful grounds for an investigation.

The petition stated in part:

“We respectfully bring to the Agency’s attention a serious allegation publicly attributed on 29 August 2026 to Bashir El-Rufai against his biological brother of the same father and mother, Hon. Mohammed Bello El-Rufai, the Member representing Kaduna North Federal Constituency.

“The allegation includes alleged cocaine use. It has been reported by multiple media organisations and circulated widely online. We attach the materials available to us for the Agency’s independent assessment. We do not present the allegation as an established fact.

“The family relationship may explain the attention the allegation has attracted, but neither that relationship nor the surrounding family dispute proves or disproves it.

The petitioners said their concern was that an allegation of cocaine use involving a serving federal legislator should not simply be dismissed as a private family matter.

They argued that if the allegation were established through competent evidence, unlawful cocaine use could have implications under Nigerian drug-control laws, as well as raise questions concerning public trust, ethical responsibility and confidence in an elected representative.

According to them, constituents who voted, or may vote again, for a representative in the National Assembly have a legitimate interest in the lawful clarification of such a serious allegation.

They, however, acknowledged that public office does not remove an individual’s right to privacy or the constitutional presumption of innocence.

The petition further argued that alleged conduct capable of constituting an offence under drug-control laws does not automatically become a purely private matter because the allegation emerged from a family dispute.

It cited Sections 3 and 4 of the NDLEA Act, which place drug-law enforcement and investigation within the statutory responsibilities of the agency.

The petitioners therefore asked the NDLEA to receive and assess the information, independently determine whether lawful grounds for an investigation existed, and, if such grounds were established, take any appropriate lawful investigative steps.

They also requested that, where practicable, the agency communicate its administrative disposition of the petition.

The constituents said that if the allegation were established by competent evidence, alleged unlawful drug use by a serving federal legislator could raise issues beyond the immediate family dispute because of the responsibilities attached to public office.

The petitioners also provided a schedule of enclosures accompanying the petition. The materials reportedly included the original signed petition, public statements, contemporaneous media reports, indexed exhibits, preserved screenshots and SHA-256 references.

A separate courier and delivery record attached to the package indicated that it was sent through UPS and carried an NDLEA receiving stamp dated September 8, 2026.

The petitioners urged the agency to take any lawful investigative steps it considers appropriate and, where practicable, inform them of the administrative outcome of their petition.