Former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai has instituted a N1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) over what he described as the unlawful invasion and search of his Abuja residence.
In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026 and filed on February 20 at the Federal High Court in Abuja, El-Rufai, through his counsel, Oluwole Iyamu (SAN), is contesting the validity of a search warrant issued on February 4 by a Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrates’ Court.
He is seeking a declaration that the warrant authorising the search and seizure at his residence is invalid and of no legal effect.
According to the application, the former governor argued 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 named the ICPC as the first respondent, while the Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrates’ Court, Abuja Magisterial District, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation were listed as second to fourth respondents.
He is seeking seven reliefs, including a declaration that the search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 at about 2 p.m., allegedly carried out by operatives of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force, breached his fundamental rights.
Specifically, he asked the court to declare that the operation “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.”
El-Rufai further prayed the court to hold 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 orders, he is requesting that the respondents be restrained from relying on or tendering any items seized during the search in any investigation or prosecution involving him.
He also sought “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.”
He broke down the claim into N300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma and emotional distress; N400 million as exemplary damages to deter what he described as future misconduct by law enforcement agencies; and N300 million as aggravated damages for the alleged malicious and oppressive conduct of the respondents. He also asked for N100 million as the cost of filing the suit.
In his legal arguments, Iyamu maintained that the warrant was fundamentally flawed. He contended that it lacked specificity in describing the items to be seized, contained material typographical errors, and included vague and overbroad directives without verifiable probable cause.
He argued that these defects violated Sections 143 to 148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, Section 36 of the ICPC Act, 2000, and constitutional protections against arbitrary intrusion.
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,” a requirement he said was not met.
He added that Section 144 demands precise descriptions of the location and items to avoid general warrants, but the disputed warrant merely referred to “the thing aforesaid” without details.
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.”
Iyamu argued that the February 19 operation amounted to an unlawful invasion and breached his client’s constitutional guarantees. He cited authorities including C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137 and Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 481 to support his argument that improperly obtained evidence is inadmissible.
In a supporting affidavit, Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to El-Rufai, stated that ICPC and police operatives stormed the residence under what he described as a defective warrant issued on or about February 4.
He deposed that the “search warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for,” and alleged that procedural safeguards were not observed during the operation.
Shaba added that officers seized personal documents and electronic devices, resulting in “undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress.” He said none of the items had been returned and that the suit was filed in good faith to protect the applicant’s constitutional rights.
