Former 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 what he described as an unlawful invasion of his residence in Abuja.
Through his legal team, led by Senior Advocate Oluwole Iyamu, El-Rufai is challenging the validity of the search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Magistrate’s Court. The suit alleges that the warrant authorizing a search and seizure at his residence was defective and thus null and void.
In the suit filed at the Federal High Court (case number FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026), El-Rufai contends that the warrant lacked particularity, contained material drafting errors, was ambiguous in execution terms, overly broad, and was issued without probable cause. He argues that this rendered the search unlawful and in breach of Section 37 of the Nigerian Constitution, which safeguards against unreasonable searches.
El-Rufai also named the Chief Magistrate, the Inspector-General of Police (I-G), and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as co-respondents in the suit.
Claims and Reliefs Sought
In the originating motion dated February 20 and filed by Iyamu, the former governor seeks seven principal reliefs:
– A declaration that the invasion and search of his Abuja residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive on February 19 at about 2 p.m., carried out by ICPC and police agents under the contested warrant, violated his fundamental rights to dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy, as guaranteed under Sections 34 to 37 of the Constitution.
– A court declaration that evidence obtained from the unlawful search is inadmissible in any legal proceedings against him.
– An injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from using or tendering any evidence or items seized during the search in any investigation, prosecution, or trial involving him.
– An order mandating the immediate return of all items seized from his premises, accompanied by a detailed inventory.
– An award of N1 billion in general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against the respondents jointly and severally. El-Rufai’s breakdown of damages includes N300 million for compensatory claims related to psychological trauma and emotional distress; N400 million as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct by law enforcement; and N300 million as aggravated damages reflecting the malicious and oppressive nature of the defendants’ actions.
– Costs of the suit, including legal fees, to the tune of N100 million.
Defects in the Search Warrant
Senior Advocate Iyamu argued that the warrant was fundamentally flawed. It allegedly lacked specificity about the items to be seized, contained typographical errors, had ambiguous execution parameters, and was overbroad in its instructions. Critically, it failed to establish verifiable probable cause — a necessary legal standard.
Iyamu referenced Sections 143 to 148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, as well as relevant sections of the ICPC Act (2000), to underscore the warrant’s deficiencies. Notably:
– Section 143 demands that a warrant application be supported by sworn information establishing reasonable suspicion, which was absent in this case.
– Section 144 requires particular descriptions of places to be searched and items to seize to prevent “general warrants,” but the warrant in question vaguely referred only to “the thing aforesaid.”
– Section 146 stipulates a prescribed warrant format free from errors, yet this warrant contained mistakes in the address, date, and district.
– Section 147 prohibits indiscriminate language in directing who should execute the warrant, but this warrant addressed “all officers” indiscriminately.
– Section 148 requires execution at reasonable times, but contradictory language in the warrant created ambiguity.
**Constitutional Violations and Precedents Cited**
Iyamu stated that executing the invalid warrant on February 19 resulted in an unlawful intrusion, breaching El-Rufai’s constitutional rights to dignity, liberty, fair hearing, and privacy.
He further argued the acquisition of evidence through such means is inadmissible, citing judicial precedents including *C.O.P. v. Omoh* (1969) and *Fawehinmi v. IGP* (2000), where courts ruled that evidence obtained in violation of fundamental rights must be excluded.
Affidavit Details
The affidavit supporting the suit, sworn by Mohammed Shaba, El-Rufai’s Principal Secretary, affirmed that officers from ICPC and Nigeria Police Force executed the search warrant on February 19.
Shaba decried the warrant’s defects, including its failure to specify the items sought and absence of authorizing magisterial district details. He also alleged that officers did not submit themselves to lawful searches before conducting their operation — a procedural requirement.
During the search, personal items including documents and electronic gadgets were seized, resulting in alleged humiliation and psychological trauma.
To date, the seized items have not been returned, and the respondents continue to rely on this evidence, according to the affidavit.
