The immediate past Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has filed a N1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) over the alleged unlawful invasion and search of his Abuja residence.
El-Rufai is contesting the legality of a search warrant that was issued on February 4 by a Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrates’ Court in a lawsuit titled FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026 and filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja on February 20 by his attorney, Oluwole Iyamu (SAN).
He is requesting that the court deem the warrant that permitted the search and seizure at his home void.
The former governor argued in the application that the warrant was “null and void for lack of particularity, material drafting errors, ambiguity in execution parameters, overbreadth, and absence of probable cause, thereby constituting an unlawful and unreasonable search in violation of Section 37 of the Constitution.”
El-Rufai listed the ICPC as the first respondent, followed by the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrates’ Court, Abuja Magisterial District, as the second and fourth respondents, respectively.
Specifically, he asked the court to declare that the search “amounts to a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.”
He further urged the court to declare that “any evidence obtained pursuant to the aforesaid invalid warrant and unlawful search is inadmissible in any proceedings against the applicant, as it was procured in breach of constitutional safeguards.”
Among other prayers, El-Rufai is seeking an order restraining the respondents from relying on or tendering any items seized during the search in any investigation or prosecution involving him.
The former minister of the FCT also asked for “an order directing the 1st and 3rd respondents (ICPC and I-G) to forthwith return all items seized from the applicant’s premises during the unlawful search, together with a detailed inventory thereof.”
In addition, the former governor is demanding “the sum of N1,000,000,000.00 (one billion naira) as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against the respondents jointly and severally for the violations of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including trespass, unlawful seizure, and the resultant psychological trauma, humiliation, distress, infringement of privacy, and reputational harm.”
The former governor divided the N1 billion claim into three parts: N400 million for exemplary damages to prevent future misconduct by law enforcement, N300 million for compensatory damages for psychological trauma and emotional distress, and N300 million for aggravated damages for what he called the oppressive and malicious nature of the respondents’ actions.
In addition, he requested N100 million to compensate for legal fees and other related costs for the suit’s filing.
Iyamu argued that the warrant had several serious flaws, including vague instructions, unclear execution terms, a lack of detail in the description of the objects to be taken, and an absence of verifiable probable cause.
The alleged flaws, he claimed, violated constitutional safeguards against arbitrary interference as well as Sections 143 to 148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, and Section 36 of the ICPC Act, 2000.
According to him, “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,” which he said was absent in the present case.
He continued by saying that in order to prevent generic warrants, Section 144 requires precise descriptions of the location to be searched and the objects sought; nevertheless, the aforementioned warrant only included a vague reference to “the thing aforesaid” without providing any further information.
He further submitted that “Section 146 stipulates that the warrant must be in the prescribed form, free from defects that could mislead, but the document is riddled with errors in the address, date, and district designation.
“Section 147 allows direction to specified persons, but the warrant’s indiscriminate addressing to ‘all officers’ is overbroad and unaccountable.
“Section 148 permits execution at reasonable times, but the contradictory language creates ambiguity, undermining procedural clarity.”
He cited decided cases, including C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137 and Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 481, to support his position that evidence obtained through improper means is inadmissible.
In an affidavit supporting the application, Mohammed Shaba, a principal secretary to the former governor, deposed 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.
He averred that the “search warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for” and alleged that the officers failed to comply with procedural requirements before conducting the search.
Shaba further stated that during the operation, officers allegedly seized personal documents and electronic devices, causing “undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress.”
He added that none of the seized items had been returned and that the application was filed in good faith to enforce the applicant’s constitutional rights.
