By Amah
Kindly share:
Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has instituted a ₦1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), accusing the agency of orchestrating an unlawful invasion of his Abuja residence.
The suit, filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja and marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, names the ICPC as the first respondent.
Also joined in the action are the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Abuja Magisterial District, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The legal action follows a February 19 operation during which security operatives reportedly stormed and searched El-Rufai’s residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja. The search was said to have been carried out pursuant to a warrant allegedly issued on February 4 by a Chief Magistrate in the FCT.
The operation forms part of ongoing investigations by anti-corruption authorities. While the ICPC has not publicly detailed the precise scope of the probe, sources indicate that it relates to matters connected to El-Rufai’s tenure as Kaduna State governor from 2015 to 2023.
El-Rufai, a prominent political figure and former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, has in recent months been at the centre of national political discourse. His tenure in Kaduna was marked by sweeping reforms, infrastructure expansion, and controversial security policies, drawing both commendation and criticism. The current investigation appears to signal heightened scrutiny of former public office holders amid renewed anti-corruption enforcement efforts.
Through his legal team led by Oluwole Iyamu, the former governor is challenging both the validity of the search warrant and the manner of its execution.
He is asking the court to declare the warrant invalid, null, and void on grounds including:
Lack of particularity in describing items to be seized
Material drafting and typographical errors
Ambiguity in execution parameters
Overbreadth in authorisation
Absence of probable cause
According to the application, the warrant violated Sections 143–148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, as well as Section 36 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000. El-Rufai further argues that the search breached constitutional safeguards enshrined in Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which guarantee rights to dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy.
The suit contends that the warrant was indiscriminately addressed to “all officers,” allegedly contrary to statutory provisions requiring specificity. It also faults alleged errors in the address, date, and district designation, describing the document as “riddled with defects capable of misleading execution.”
El-Rufai maintains that the February 19 operation constituted a gross violation of his fundamental rights. He alleges that agents of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force entered and searched his premises without lawful authority, seized documents and electronic devices, and caused humiliation, psychological trauma, and reputational harm.
An affidavit deposed to by Mohammed Shaba, identified as a Principal Secretary to the former governor, claims the officers failed to submit themselves for search as required by law before executing the warrant. The affidavit further asserts that the warrant did not clearly specify the items sought and that no seized materials have been returned.
The applicant is also seeking a judicial declaration that any evidence obtained during the search is inadmissible in any proceedings against him, arguing that it was procured in breach of constitutional safeguards. In support of this argument, his counsel cited judicial precedent, including C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137, which emphasised the exclusion of evidence obtained through improper means.
El-Rufai is seeking seven principal reliefs, including:
A declaration nullifying the search warrant
A declaration that the search violated his constitutional rights
An injunction restraining the respondents from using any materials obtained during the search
An order directing the immediate return of all seized items, accompanied by a detailed inventory
He is also demanding ₦1 billion in damages, broken down as follows:
₦300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma and emotional distress
₦400 million as exemplary damages to deter alleged future misconduct by law enforcement agencies
₦300 million as aggravated damages for what he describes as malicious and oppressive conduct
Additionally, he is seeking ₦100 million as costs of filing the suit, covering legal fees and associated expenses.
The case is likely to test the procedural integrity of search warrants issued under Nigerian law, particularly in high-profile anti-corruption investigations. It also underscores ongoing tensions between law enforcement agencies and politically exposed persons who challenge investigative methods in court.
Legal analysts note that the Federal High Court’s eventual ruling could clarify standards regarding the specificity, drafting accuracy, and execution of search warrants under the ACJA and related statutes. The outcome may also shape future enforcement strategies by anti-corruption agencies.
As proceedings commence, the matter adds another layer to Nigeria’s evolving anti-corruption landscape, one that increasingly features courtroom battles over constitutional rights, investigative powers, and the limits of state authority.
The respondents are yet to file formal responses to the suit as of press time.
