A former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, has instituted a N1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission over what he described as the unlawful invasion and search of his Abuja residence.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, was filed on February 20 at the Federal High Court in Abuja by his counsel, Oluwole Iyamu (SAN). In the application, El-Rufai is challenging the validity of a search warrant issued on February 4 by a Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrates’ Court, Abuja Magisterial District.
He is asking the court to declare the warrant authorising the search and seizure at his residence null and void. According to the originating processes, the former governor contends that the warrant was fundamentally defective and unconstitutional. He described it as “null and void for lack of particularity, material drafting errors, ambiguity in execution parameters, overbreadth, and absence of probable cause,” arguing that it amounted to an unlawful and unreasonable search in violation of Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution.
El-Rufai listed the ICPC as the first respondent in the suit. The Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrates’ Court, Abuja Magisterial District, was named as the second respondent, while the Nigeria Police Force, represented by the Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation were cited as the third and fourth respondents respectively.
In the suit, the former governor is seeking seven principal reliefs from the court. Among them is a declaration that the invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 at about 2 p.m. violated his fundamental rights. He alleged that the operation was carried out by operatives of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force under the authority of the disputed warrant.
Specifically, he asked the court to hold that the search constituted a gross violation of his rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution. He further urged the court to declare that any evidence obtained pursuant to the allegedly invalid warrant and unlawful search is inadmissible in any proceedings against him because it was procured in breach of constitutional safeguards.
El-Rufai is also seeking an order restraining the respondents from relying on or tendering any items seized during the search in the course of any investigation or prosecution involving him. In addition, he is praying for an order directing the ICPC and the Inspector-General of Police to immediately return all items seized from his residence, together with a detailed inventory of those items.
Central to the suit is his demand for N1,000,000,000 as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against the respondents jointly and severally. He claims the sum represents compensation for alleged violations of his fundamental rights, including trespass, unlawful seizure, psychological trauma, humiliation, emotional distress, infringement of privacy, and reputational harm.
The N1 billion claim is broken down into N300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma and emotional distress; N400 million as exemplary damages intended to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies; and N300 million as aggravated damages for what he described as the malicious and oppressive conduct of the respondents. He is also seeking N100 million as the cost of filing the suit, covering legal fees and associated litigation expenses.
In his grounds of argument, Iyamu maintained that the search warrant was incurably defective. He cited the lack of specificity in the description of items to be seized, material typographical errors, ambiguous execution terms, overbroad directives, and the absence of verifiable probable cause as fatal flaws that rendered the warrant invalid.
According to him, these defects contravened Sections 143 to 148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, as well as Section 36 of the ICPC Act, 2000, in addition to constitutional provisions protecting citizens against arbitrary intrusion.
Iyamu argued that Section 143 of the ACJA requires that an application for a search warrant be supported by information in writing and on oath, setting forth reasonable grounds for suspicion. He contended that no such credible basis was established in the present case. He further submitted that Section 144 mandates a specific description of the place to be searched and the items sought, in order to prevent general warrants. However, the warrant in question allegedly referred vaguely to “the thing aforesaid” without adequate detail.
He also argued that Section 146 stipulates that a warrant must be in the prescribed form and free from defects capable of misleading those executing it. According to him, the document in dispute contained errors in the address, date, and district designation. He added that while Section 147 allows direction to specified persons, the warrant’s indiscriminate addressing to “all officers” was overly broad and unaccountable. He further contended that Section 148, which permits execution at reasonable times, was undermined by contradictory language in the warrant that created procedural ambiguity.
Iyamu relied on judicial authorities, including C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137 and Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 481, to support the argument that evidence obtained through improper or unconstitutional means is inadmissible.
In a supporting affidavit deposed to by Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, it was stated that officers of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force stormed the residence on February 19 under what he described as a defective warrant issued on or about February 4. Shaba averred that the warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for and alleged that the officers failed to comply with required procedural safeguards.
He further stated that personal documents and electronic devices were seized during the operation, allegedly causing undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress. According to him, none of the items taken during the search have been returned, prompting the decision to seek judicial redress.
The suit, according to the deponent, was filed in good faith for the sole purpose of enforcing the applicant’s constitutional rights and upholding the rule of law. The matter is now before the Federal High Court in Abuja for determination.
