El-Rufai Files N1bn Suit Against ICPC Over Alleged Unlawful Search of Abuja Home
A former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, has instituted a N1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) over the alleged unlawful invasion and search of his Abuja residence.
In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026 and filed on February 20 before the Federal High Court, Abuja, through his counsel, Oluwole Iyamu (SAN), the former governor is challenging the validity of a search warrant issued on February 4 by a Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrates’ Court.
El-Rufai is asking the court to declare the warrant authorising the search and seizure at his residence null and void, contending that it was defective and lacked the constitutional safeguards required for such action.
According to the application, the warrant was allegedly invalid for lack of particularity, drafting errors, ambiguity in execution parameters, overbreadth, and absence of probable cause. He argued that the search conducted at his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 at about 2 p.m., violated his right to privacy as guaranteed under Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The ICPC is listed as the first respondent in the suit, while the Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrates’ Court, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation are named as second to fourth respondents.
The former governor is seeking seven reliefs, including declarations that the search breached his 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 further urged the court to declare inadmissible any evidence allegedly obtained pursuant to the disputed warrant, arguing that such materials were procured in breach of constitutional safeguards.
Among other prayers, El-Rufai is asking the court to restrain the respondents from relying on or tendering any items seized during the operation in any investigation or prosecution involving him. He also seeks an order directing the ICPC and the Inspector-General of Police to immediately return all items seized from his residence, alongside a detailed inventory.
In addition, the former governor is demanding N1 billion as general, exemplary and aggravated damages for alleged violations of his fundamental rights, including trespass, unlawful seizure 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 future misconduct; and N300 million as aggravated damages for what he described as malicious and oppressive conduct. He is also seeking N100 million as the cost of filing the suit.
In his grounds of argument, Iyamu maintained that the warrant contravened Sections 143 to 148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, and Section 36 of the ICPC Act, 2000. He argued that the warrant failed to provide specific descriptions of items to be seized, contained material typographical errors, and was overbroad in its directives.
He further submitted that the warrant did not comply with statutory requirements mandating sworn information establishing reasonable grounds for suspicion before issuance.
Counsel cited judicial 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 evidence obtained through improper or unconstitutional means is inadmissible.
In an affidavit deposed to by Mohammed Shaba, identified as a Principal Secretary to the former governor, it was stated that operatives of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force executed the warrant on February 19 and allegedly seized personal documents and electronic devices.
Shaba averred that the warrant did not specify the items sought and that the officers failed to comply with procedural requirements. He further stated that the seized items had not been returned and that the suit was filed to enforce the applicant’s constitutional rights.
No date has yet been fixed for hearing of the matter.
