- the former Kaduna governor is asking the court to invalidate the warrant authorising the search
- He claims the warrant lacked specific details, contained drafting errors, and failed to establish probable cause
- El-Rufai further seeks an order compelling the ICPC and the Inspector-General of Police to immediately return all items taken from his residence
Former Kaduna 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), accusing the agency of unlawfully raiding and searching his Abuja home.
The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, was filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja on February 20 by his lawyer, Oluwole Iyamu (SAN). El-Rufai is contesting a search warrant issued on February 4 by a Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrates’ Court, arguing that it was defective and improperly granted, Eko Hot Blog reports.
EDITOR’S PICK
- Troops Intercept Suspected Gun Runner, Seize 969 Rounds of Ammunition in Taraba
- Lagos Receives $1m Japanese Support to Prevent Cholera Outbreak
- Eniola Badmus: Mindset Transformation Is Secret To My 80kg Weight Loss Success
In his application, the former Kaduna governor is asking the court to invalidate the warrant authorising the search and seizure carried out at his residence.
He claims the warrant lacked specific details, contained drafting errors, and failed to establish probable cause, making the operation unconstitutional and a breach of his right to privacy under Section 37 of the Constitution.
El-Rufai named the ICPC as the first respondent in the suit. The Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrates’ Court, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation were listed as second to fourth respondents.
Among the reliefs sought, he is asking the court to declare that the search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 around 2 p.m., allegedly conducted by ICPC and police operatives, violated his fundamental rights.
He argues that the action infringed on his rights to dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing and privacy as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the Constitution.
He is also requesting a ruling that any material obtained during the search be declared inadmissible in court on the grounds that it was secured through an unlawful process.
Additionally, he wants the court to bar the respondents from relying on or presenting any items seized during the operation in future investigations or prosecutions involving him.
El-Rufai further seeks an order compelling the ICPC and the Inspector-General of Police to immediately return all items taken from his residence, along with a comprehensive inventory.
As part of his claim, he is demanding N1 billion in general, exemplary and aggravated damages, alleging trespass, unlawful seizure, reputational damage and emotional distress resulting from the search.
He itemised the amount to include N300 million as compensation for psychological trauma, N400 million as exemplary damages to discourage similar conduct by law enforcement agencies, and N300 million as aggravated damages, which he described as reflecting the alleged malicious nature of the operation. He is also seeking N100 million to cover legal costs.
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 and Section 36 of the ICPC Act 2000.
He contended that the document did not clearly specify the items to be seized, contained typographical and procedural errors, and was broadly addressed to “all officers,” which he described as excessive and lacking accountability.
Citing decided cases, including C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) and Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000), counsel argued that evidence obtained through an improperly issued warrant should not be admitted in court.
An affidavit sworn by Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, stated that ICPC and police officers executed the warrant on February 19. He alleged that the warrant did not clearly state the items being sought and that officers did not comply with required procedures during the operation.
According to him, personal documents and electronic devices were taken, causing embarrassment and distress. He added that the seized items have yet to be returned and that the suit was filed to safeguard the applicant’s constitutional rights.
FURTHER READING
