Former Nasir El-Rufai has instituted a N1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission over what he described as the unlawful invasion and search of his Abuja residence.
In the suit filed at the Federal High Court, Abuja, El-Rufai, through his counsel led by Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, is challenging the validity of a search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
He is asking the court to declare the warrant invalid, null and void.
The former Kaduna State governor contended that the warrant authorising the search and seizure at his residence was fundamentally flawed.
He urged the court to declare that the search 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 News Agency of Nigeria reports that the case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, lists the ICPC as the first respondent. The Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja Magisterial District; the Inspector-General of Police; and the Attorney-General of the Federation are named as second to fourth respondents respectively.
In the originating motion dated and filed on February 20, El-Rufai is seeking seven reliefs from the court. He is asking for a declaration that the search conducted at his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 at about 2 p.m. by operatives of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force was unlawful.
He prayed the court to declare that the invasion and search of his residence, “under the aforesaid invalid warrant, 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.”
El-Rufai further urged 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.”
He is also seeking an order restraining the respondents and their agents from using or relying on any materials seized during the search in any investigation or prosecution involving him.
Among other reliefs, the former governor requested: “An order directing the Ist and 3rd respondents (ICPC and I-G) to forthwith retum 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 broke down the N1 billion claim 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 is equally seeking N100 million as the cost of filing the suit, covering legal fees and related expenses.
In his legal arguments, Iyamu maintained that the search warrant was defective for failing to clearly specify the items to be seized, containing typographical errors, and providing ambiguous and overly broad directives without verifiable probable cause.
He argued that the alleged defects contravened Sections 143 to 148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015; Section 36 of the ICPC Act, 2000; and constitutional provisions safeguarding citizens from arbitrary intrusion.
Citing Section 143 of the ACJA, Iyamu said an application for a search warrant must be supported by written information on oath stating reasonable grounds for suspicion, which he claimed was lacking due to an incomplete initiating clause. He also referenced Section 144, which requires specific descriptions of the place to be searched and items sought, stating that the warrant vaguely referred to “the thing aforesaid” without 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 further argued that the execution of the warrant on February 19 led to an unlawful invasion of his client’s home, violating his constitutional rights to dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing and privacy.
He added that the search lacked legal justification and was carried out in a manner that caused humiliation and distress. He 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 position that evidence obtained through improper or vague warrants is inadmissible.
In an affidavit supporting the application, Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, stated that officers of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force stormed the residence around 2 p.m. on February 19 based on what he described as a defective warrant issued on or about February 4.
According to him, the warrant lacked specificity and contained several errors as outlined in the application. He said the “search warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for.”
Shaba also alleged that the officers did not submit themselves for search before commencing the operation, as required by law.
“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 same,” Shaba said.
