By John Umeh
Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, challenging what he describes as an unlawful raid on his residence by operatives of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
In the fundamental rights enforcement suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, the ex-governor is seeking N1 billion in damages over what he claims was a gross violation of his constitutional rights following a search conducted at his Abuja home.
Parties Joined in the Suit
Aside from the ICPC, El-Rufai also listed the Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrate Court, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation as respondents in the matter.
Through his legal team led by Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, the former governor is asking the court to invalidate the search warrant issued on February 4, describing it as fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional.
Claims of Defective Warrant
El-Rufai contends that the warrant used to search his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, lacked the required legal precision. According to his lawyers, the document failed to clearly specify the items sought, contained drafting mistakes, and was overly broad in scope.
They argue that these deficiencies render the warrant null and void, and that its execution amounted to an unreasonable intrusion contrary to Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which guarantees citizens’ right to privacy.
The suit further maintains that the February 19 operation, carried out by ICPC and police officers, infringed on his fundamental rights to dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy as protected under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.
Demand for Return of Seized Items
El-Rufai is requesting a court order compelling the ICPC and the police to immediately return all items allegedly confiscated during the search, including documents and electronic devices. He is also seeking a detailed inventory of the materials taken from his residence.
Additionally, he wants the court to bar the respondents from using any evidence obtained during the search in any ongoing or future investigation or prosecution against him.
Breakdown of N1bn Compensation Claim
The former governor is asking the court to award him N1 billion in general, exemplary, and aggravated damages. The sum is broken down as follows:
-
N300 million as compensation for alleged psychological trauma and emotional distress
-
N400 million as exemplary damages to discourage future misconduct by law enforcement agencies
-
N300 million as aggravated damages for what he described as oppressive and malicious conduct
He is also demanding N100 million to cover legal expenses and other costs associated with filing the suit.
Alleged Violations of Legal Provisions
In his legal arguments, Iyamu maintained that the warrant did not comply with relevant provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, particularly sections relating to specificity, sworn information, and procedural clarity.
He further cited judicial precedents, including C.O.P v. Omoh (1969) and Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000), to support the position that evidence obtained through defective or vague warrants should be deemed inadmissible.
Affidavit Details
In an affidavit supporting the application, Mohammed Shaba, identified as a principal secretary to El-Rufai, stated that officers who executed the search did not specify the items they were looking for. He also alleged that they failed to comply with certain procedural safeguards before carrying out the operation.
Shaba claimed that the search caused humiliation and emotional distress to the former governor and that none of the seized items had been returned as of the time of filing the suit.
Awaiting Court’s Determination
The case is expected to test the legality of the search warrant and the manner in which the operation was executed. The court’s decision will determine whether the actions of the anti-graft agency and other respondents violated the former governor’s constitutional rights.
