The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission is being sued for N1 billion by former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai for allegedly unlawfully entering and searching his Abuja home.
In the case filed on February 20 at the Federal High Court in Abuja by his attorney, Oluwole Iyamu (SAN), with the filing number FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, 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.
He is requesting that the court deem the search and seizure warrant that was issued 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 Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrates’ Court, Abuja Magisterial District, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation were designated by El-Rufai as the first, second, and fourth respondents, respectively.
He is asking for 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.
He specifically requested that the court rule that the search “amounts to a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights to privacy, personal liberty, fair hearing, and dignity of the human person under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.”
The court should rule that “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 added.
El-Rufai is praying for an order prohibiting the respondents from using or presenting any objects found during the search in any inquiry or legal action against him.
Additionally, he requested “an order directing the first and third 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.”
He is also 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.”
In order to prevent future misconduct by law enforcement agencies, the former governor divided the N1 billion claim into three parts: N400 million for exemplary damages, 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.
Additionally, he requested N100 million to cover legal fees and other related costs in order to file the lawsuit.
Iyamu argued that the warrant was essentially flawed, pointing to a number of issues, including vague instructions, unclear execution requirements, a lack of verifiable probable cause, and a vague description of the objects to be seized.
He maintained that the purported flaws violated the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015’s Sections 143 to 148, the ICPC Act, 2000’s Section 36, and the constitution’s safeguards against arbitrary interference.
In the current case, he claimed, “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 preclude 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.”
The warrant is rife with faults in the address, date, and district designation, he added, despite Section 146’s requirement that it be in the correct format and free of flaws that could mislead.
Direction to designated individuals is permitted under Section 147; nevertheless, the warrant’s indiscriminate reference to “all officers” is excessively wide and unaccountable.
The conflicting language in Section 148 undermines procedural clarity by allowing execution at acceptable times.
Iyamu claimed that his client’s property was illegally invaded and that his constitutional rights were violated when the warrant was executed on February 19.
In support of his argument that evidence gathered improperly is inadmissible, he cited decided instances such as C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137 and Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 481.
Mohammed Shaba, the former governor’s principal secretary, testified in support of the application that the residence was invaded on February 19 by officers of the Nigeria Police Force and the ICPC using what he claimed was a faulty warrant that was issued on or around February 4.
He claimed that the “search warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for” and that the officers had not followed the required procedures prior to the search.
Officers are accused of creating “undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress” by seizing personal documents and electronic devices during the operation, Shaba added.
In order to uphold the applicant’s constitutional rights, he noted, the application was submitted in good faith and none of the confiscated goods had been returned.
