Former Kaduna Gov. Nasir El-Rufai has instituted a ₦1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) following an alleged unlawful raid on his Abuja home.
Represented by a legal team led by Mr. Oluwole Iyamu (SAN), the former governor is challenging the validity of a search warrant issued on February 4 by an FCT Chief Magistrate.
In the suit (FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026), El-Rufai argues that the warrant was “null and void” due to material drafting errors, ambiguity, and a lack of probable cause.
He contends that the subsequent search of his Mambilla Street residence on February 19 constituted a gross violation of his constitutional rights to privacy, dignity, and personal liberty.
Alongside the ICPC, the suit names the Chief Magistrate, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation as respondents.
He also asked 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.”
El-Rufai, therefore, sought an order of injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from further relying on, using, or tendering any evidence or items seized during the unlawful search in any investigation, prosecution, or proceedings involving him.
“An order directing the Ist 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.
“An order awarding 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.”
El-Rufai gave the breakdown of the N1 billion in damages to include a N300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma, emotional distress, and loss of personal security;
a N400 million as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies and vindicate the applicant’s rights; a N300 million as aggravated damages for the malicious, high-handed and oppressive nature of the respondents’ actions, including the use of a patently defective warrant procured through misleading representations.
He also sought N100 million as the cost of filing the suit, including legal fees and associated expenses.
In his grounds of argument, the senior lawyer argued that the search warrant was fundamentally defective, lacking specificity in the description of items to be seized, containing material typographical errors, ambiguous execution terms, overbroad directives, and no verifiable probable cause.
He said this was in contravention of Sections 143-148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015; Section 36 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences (ICPC) Act, 2000, and constitutional protections against arbitrary intrusions.
Specifically, 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, which was absent here, as evidenced by the incomplete initiating clause.
He said Section 144 mandates particular descriptions of the place to be searched and the items sought, to prevent general warrants.
He, however, argued that the instant warrant vaguely referred to “the thing aforesaid” without any detail.
“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 submitted.
Iyamu stated that the execution of the invalid warrant on Feb. 19 resulted in an unlawful invasion of his client’s premises, constituting violations of the rights to dignity (Section 34), personal liberty (Section 35), fair hearing (Section 36), and privacy (Section 37) of the Constitution.
He further argued that the search was conducted without legal justification and in a manner that inflicted humiliation and distress.
“Evidence obtained without a valid warrant is unlawful and inadmissible, as established in judicial precedents such as C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137, where the court ruled that evidence procured through improper means contravene fundamental rights and must be excluded,” he said.
Citing the landmark case of Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000), El-Rufai’s counsel argued that the judiciary has long condemned vague warrants for granting “unbridled discretion” and facilitating abuse of power.
The legal team presented a series of precedents to reinforce the claim that the warrant used against the former governor was structurally defective.
In a supporting affidavit, Mohammed Shaba, Principal Secretary to the former governor, detailed the events of February 19.
He averred that ICPC and police officers entered the residence at approximately 2 p.m. using a warrant issued two weeks prior, on February 4.
Shaba testified that the warrant lacked the necessary specificity required by law, failing to identify the particular items or properties targeted for seizure.
Furthermore, he noted a procedural breach, stating that the officers failed to submit themselves for a search—a statutory requirement—before entering the premises.
“That the Magistrate did not specify the magisterial district wherein he sits. That during the invasion, the officers searched the applicant’s premises without lawful authority, seized personal items including documents and electronic devices, and caused the applicant undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress.
“Now shown to me and marked as ‘EXHIBIT B’ Is the list of the items carted away. That no items seized have been returned, and the respondents continue to rely on the unlawful evidence.
“That the applicant suffered violations of his constitutional rights as a result, and this application is brought in good faith to enforce the same,” Shaba said.
Author
Leave a comment