In response to the claimed illegal entry and search of his Abuja home, Nasir El-Rufai, a former governor of Kaduna State, has launched a N1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offenses Commission.
El-Rufai is contesting the legality of a search warrant granted on February 4 by a Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrates’ Court in the complaint filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja on February 20 by his attorney, Oluwole Iyamu (SAN), with the filing number FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026.
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.”
The Inspector-General of Police, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrates’ Court, Abuja Magisterial District, and the ICPC were mentioned by El-Rufai as the first, second, and fourth respondents, respectively.
He is requesting seven reliefs, one of which is a declaration that his fundamental rights were violated by the alleged invasion and search of his home at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 at approximately 2:00 p.m. by ICPC and Nigeria Police Force agents acting under the contested warrant.
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 specifically sought the court to declare.
“Any evidence obtained pursuant to the aforementioned invalid warrant and unlawful search is inadmissible in any proceedings against the applicant, as it was procured in breach of constitutional safeguards,” he further urged the court to declare.
El-Rufai is requesting, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the respondents from using or presenting any objects found during the search in any inquiry or legal action against him.
“An order directing the first and third respondents (ICPC and I-G) to forthright return all items seized from the applicant’s premises during the unlawful search, together with a detailed inventory thereof,” he further requested.
Furthermore, he is requesting “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.
He also sought N100 million as the cost of filing the suit, covering legal fees and associated expenses.
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.
He claimed that the current case lacked the information 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.”
In order to avoid generic warrants, he continued, Section 144 requires precise descriptions of the location to be searched and the objects sought; nevertheless, the warrant in question only made a vague reference to “the thing aforesaid.”
Additionally, he said that “the warrant is rife with errors in the address, date, and district designation, despite Section 146 requiring that it be in the prescribed form, free from defects that could mislead.”
The warrant’s indiscriminate addressing to “all officers” is excessively wide and unaccountable, even if Section 147 permits instruction to specific individuals.
“Section 148 allows execution at reasonable times, but the conflicting wording undermines procedural clarity by creating ambiguity.”
Iyamu claimed that the warrant’s execution on February 19 violated his client’s constitutional rights and led to an illegal invasion of his property.
C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137 and Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 481 are two decided instances he used to bolster his argument that evidence gathered improperly 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 claimed that the officers had not followed the required procedures prior to the search and that the “search warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for.”
Shaba added that authorities allegedly caused “undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress” by seizing personal documents and electronic devices during the raid.
He went on to say that the application was made in good faith to uphold the applicant’s fundamental rights and that none of the confiscated goods had been restored.
