El-Rufai Files N1bn Suit Against ICPC Over Alleged Unlawful Abuja Home Search
Former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai has approached the Federal High Court in Abuja with a N1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), following what he described as an unlawful search of his Abuja residence.
Details obtained by PulseNets show that the former governor, through his legal team led by Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, is asking the court to invalidate the search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the FCT. The warrant authorised security operatives to conduct a search and seize items at his residence.
Court filings seen by PulseNets indicate that El-Rufai is urging the court to pronounce the warrant invalid on grounds that it allegedly lacked specificity, contained material drafting defects, and was executed under ambiguous and overbroad terms without probable cause. He contends that the process breached Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution relating to privacy.
Politics Nigeria reported that the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, lists the ICPC as the 1st 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 were named as 2nd to 4th respondents respectively.
PulseNets learnt that the application, dated February 20 and filed by Iyamu, seeks seven principal reliefs before the court.
According to documents reviewed by PulseNets, El-Rufai is requesting a declaration that the search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, allegedly carried out on February 19 at about 2pm by operatives of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force, amounted to a violation of his constitutional rights to dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.
He further asked the court to hold 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.”
The former governor is also seeking an injunction restraining the respondents from relying on or tendering any items allegedly recovered during the search in any investigation or prosecution involving him.
Among the additional reliefs, he is requesting “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.”
He is equally demanding “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.”
PulseNets gathered that the N1 billion claim was itemised to include N300 million as compensatory damages for alleged psychological trauma and emotional distress; N400 million as exemplary damages aimed at deterring future misconduct by law enforcement agencies; and N300 million as aggravated damages for what was described as malicious and oppressive conduct tied to the execution of a defective warrant.
In addition, El-Rufai is seeking N100 million as the cost of filing the action, covering legal fees and related expenses.
In the grounds of argument obtained by PulseNets, Iyamu maintained that the warrant was fundamentally defective, asserting that it failed to provide a specific description of items to be seized and contained typographical and structural errors, ambiguous execution directives, and lacked 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 protections against arbitrary intrusion.
Specifically, Iyamu submitted that Section 143 of the ACJA requires an application for a search warrant to be supported by written information on oath establishing reasonable grounds for suspicion, which he said was absent due to what he termed an incomplete initiating clause.
He further contended that Section 144 mandates particular descriptions of the place to be searched and the items sought to prevent general warrants, but noted that the document vaguely referenced “the thing aforesaid” without clarity.
According to the senior lawyer, “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.”
Iyamu further argued that the execution of the warrant on February 19 constituted an unlawful invasion of his client’s premises and violated his rights under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.
He told PulseNets that the search was allegedly carried out without lawful justification and in a manner that inflicted humiliation and distress.
Also Read: Alarm as Analyst Alleges Plot to Arrest Atiku, Amaechi, el-Rufai in Crackdown on Opposition
Citing judicial authorities, he stated, “Evidence obtained without a valid warrant is unlawful and inadmissible, as established in judicial precedents such as C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137, where the court ruled that evidence procured through improper means contravenes fundamental rights and must be excluded.”
He also referenced Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 481, noting that the courts had condemned vague warrants for granting unchecked discretion capable of abuse.
