The Office of the National Security Adviser has formally denied procuring thallium sulphate and has referred the allegation made by former Kaduna governor Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai to the Department of State Services for investigation, escalating what began as a transparency inquiry into a full security review.
In a response dated February 13, 2026, and signed on behalf of National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu, ONSA stated categorically that it “has neither procured nor initiated any process for the purchase of such material, and has no intention of doing so.”
The office further directed that the allegation be investigated by the DSS and indicated that El-Rufai and any other parties with relevant information would be invited to provide evidence.
The development reframes the controversy. The question is no longer solely about toxic chemicals. It is now about proof.
From Clarification Request to Formal Investigation
El-Rufai had earlier written to ONSA seeking clarification over what he described as reports that approximately 10 kilograms of thallium sulphate had been sourced from Poland. The compound is widely recognized as highly toxic, colourless and odourless, capable of causing fatal harm in small doses.
His letter sought details on intended use, supplier identity, storage arrangements and regulatory oversight.
ONSA’s reply rejected the allegation outright and shifted the burden of substantiation back to the accuser.
By formally referring the claim to the DSS, the matter has moved from political correspondence into an institutional investigative track.
Delivery Drama and Optics
Sources indicate that the initial attempt to deliver the response to El-Rufai’s Abuja residence encountered delays when security personnel reportedly declined receipt. It was later delivered and acknowledged by the head of security.
While procedurally minor, such details carry symbolic weight in politically charged disputes. In high-profile controversies, even logistics become part of narrative framing.
Burden of Evidence – A Legal Crossroad
Angle 360 analysis suggests the case has reached a credibility pivot.
If El-Rufai possesses documentary proof, shipping records, procurement trails or intelligence sourcing supporting the claim, the DSS investigation could widen significantly.
If no evidence emerges, the allegation risks being viewed as politically combustible speculation.
Security institutions rarely respond publicly to procurement claims unless reputational or institutional risk is perceived as significant. The swift denial suggests ONSA recognized potential public alarm around a compound often described as a lethal poison.
Political Context – Surveillance Claims Resurface
The thallium allegation unfolds against a backdrop of heightened tension between El-Rufai and Ribadu.
On the same week, El-Rufai publicly claimed he had listened to an intercepted telephone conversation allegedly involving the NSA directing security operatives to arrest him. He stated on national television that “someone tapped” the NSA’s phone.
That claim itself raised legal and security implications.
Now, with the thallium allegation formally denied and referred for investigation, the dispute has expanded beyond political rivalry into overlapping domains of intelligence credibility and institutional trust.
National Security Versus Public Narrative
Thallium sulphate is not an ordinary commodity. Its toxicity alone ensures any mention of procurement triggers public anxiety.
However, democratic accountability requires caution on both sides.
Allegations involving hazardous substances must be evidence-driven.
Denials by national security institutions must be clear and decisive.
When high-level actors exchange accusations involving poison and phone tapping, the reputational stakes for state institutions rise sharply.
Institutional Confidence at Stake
The Office of the National Security Adviser now places the matter in the hands of the DSS, signaling confidence in investigative review.
If the DSS concludes there is no evidence of procurement, the controversy may shift toward questions about responsible public statements by political figures.
If evidence surfaces, the implications would be profound, touching regulatory oversight, import control systems and hazardous material governance.
Either outcome affects institutional credibility.
Angle 360 Assessment
This episode illustrates how fragile public trust becomes when political conflict intersects with national security architecture.
The ONSA denial is unambiguous. The referral to the DSS formalizes the dispute.
The immediate test is evidentiary. The broader test is institutional maturity.
In democratic systems, allegations must withstand investigative scrutiny. At the same time, state institutions must respond transparently enough to prevent panic or misinformation.
The thallium controversy may ultimately prove less about chemicals and more about credibility.
In matters of security, perception travels faster than proof. The coming investigation will determine which prevails.
