Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has instituted a N1 billion suit to enforce his fundamental rights against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), alleging that officials unlawfully raided his Abuja residence.
Through his legal team headed by Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, the former governor is asking the court to invalidate a search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), listed as the second respondent in the matter. He contended that the warrant authorizing the search and seizure operation at his home was fundamentally flawed and should be declared null and void.
According to him, the warrant lacked specific details, contained significant drafting mistakes, and was ambiguous in outlining how it should be executed. He further argued that it was excessively broad and unsupported by probable cause, thereby amounting to an unlawful and unreasonable search that contravened Section 37 of the Constitution.
In the originating motion marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, the former governor named the ICPC as the first respondent. Also joined in the suit are the Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrate’s Court, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation as the second, third, and fourth respondents respectively.
The application, filed on February 20, seeks seven reliefs. El-Rufai is requesting a declaration that the February 19 search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, carried out around 2 p.m. by operatives of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force under the disputed warrant, constituted a serious breach of his constitutional rights. He argued that the action violated his rights to dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy as protected under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.
He further asked the court to rule that any materials or evidence obtained during the search are inadmissible in any legal proceedings against him, as they were allegedly secured in violation of constitutional safeguards.
Additionally, he is seeking an injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from relying on or presenting any items seized during the search in ongoing or future investigations and prosecutions. He also wants the court to compel the ICPC and the Inspector-General of Police to immediately return all items taken from his home, along with a comprehensive inventory.
As part of his claims, El-Rufai is demanding N1 billion in general, exemplary, and aggravated damages, jointly and severally, against the respondents. He said the sum reflects compensation for trespass, unlawful seizure, psychological trauma, humiliation, emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and reputational damage.
He provided a breakdown of the N1 billion claim, stating that N300 million represents compensatory damages for emotional distress and loss of personal security; N400 million is sought as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies and affirm his rights; and another N300 million is claimed as aggravated damages for what he described as the malicious and oppressive conduct of the respondents, including the use of what he termed a defective warrant obtained through misleading representations. He is also asking for N100 million to cover legal costs and associated expenses.
In his legal arguments, Iyamu maintained that the warrant failed to meet statutory requirements under Sections 143 to 148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, as well as Section 36 of the ICPC Act, 2000. He argued that the warrant lacked a written statement on oath establishing reasonable grounds for suspicion, as required by law, and did not clearly describe the items to be seized.
He pointed out that the document vaguely referenced “the thing aforesaid” without specifying what was being sought. He also highlighted errors in the address, date, and magisterial district, arguing that such defects rendered the warrant invalid. According to him, the directive addressing “all officers” was overly broad, and the language regarding the time of execution was contradictory, creating uncertainty.
Citing judicial precedents including C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) and Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000), the senior lawyer argued that courts have consistently rejected evidence obtained through defective warrants and condemned vague authorizations that permit unchecked discretion.
In an affidavit supporting the application, Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, stated that officers from the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force stormed the residence under what he described as a defective warrant. He alleged that the warrant did not specify the items being searched for and that the officers did not submit themselves for search as required by law before commencing the operation.
Shaba further claimed that the officials searched the premises without lawful authority, seized personal documents and electronic devices, and subjected the former governor to humiliation and emotional distress. He added that none of the confiscated items has been returned and that the authorities continue to rely on the materials obtained during the search.
According to the affidavit, the action was brought in good faith to enforce and protect the applicant’s constitutional rights.