El-Rufai Files ₦1bn Lawsuit Against ICPC

Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has filed a ₦1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission over the alleged unlawful search of his Abuja home.

El-Rufai, represented by a legal team 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 FCT, who is listed as the second respondent in the suit.

In the originating motion on notice, the former governor named ICPC as the first respondent, while the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation were listed as the second to fourth respondents respectively.

In the suit, dated and filed on February 20 by Iyamu, El-Rufai sought seven reliefs, asking the court to declare that the search warrant authorizing the search and seizure at his residence was invalid, null, and void.

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 former governor also asked the court to declare that the invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 at about 2 p.m., executed by agents of ICPC and the I-G, “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.”

He further requested 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.”

El-Rufai sought an injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from further relying on, using, or tendering any evidence or items seized during the unlawful search in any investigation, prosecution, or proceedings involving him.

He also requested: “An order directing the 1st and 3rd respondents (ICPC and I-G) to forthwith return all items seized from the applicant’s premises during the unlawful search, together with a detailed inventory thereof.”

Additionally, he asked the court to award the sum of ₦1,000,000,000 as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against the respondents jointly and severally for violations of his fundamental rights, including trespass, unlawful seizure, and the resulting psychological trauma, humiliation, distress, infringement of privacy, and reputational harm.

El-Rufai broke down the ₦1 billion damages to include “a N300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma, emotional distress, and loss of personal security; a ₦400 million as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies and vindicate the applicant’s rights; a ₦300 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 also sought ₦100 million to cover the cost of filing the suit, including legal fees and associated expenses.

In his grounds of argument, Iyamu contended that the search warrant was fundamentally defective, lacking specificity in the description of items to be seized, containing material typographical errors, ambiguous execution terms, overbroad directives, and no verifiable probable cause.

He argued that this contravened Sections 143–148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, Section 36 of the ICPC Act, 2000, and constitutional protections against arbitrary intrusions.

Specifically, Iyamu noted that Section 143 of the ACJA requires that an application for a search warrant be supported by information in writing and on oath, setting forth reasonable grounds for suspicion, which was absent in this case, as evidenced by the incomplete initiating clause.

He explained that Section 144 mandates particular descriptions of the place to be searched and the items sought, to prevent general warrants, but the warrant vaguely referred to “the thing aforesaid” without any detail.

Iyamu added, “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 said the execution of the invalid warrant on February 19 resulted in an unlawful invasion of his client’s premises, constituting violations of the rights to dignity (Section 34), personal liberty (Section 35), fair hearing (Section 36), and privacy (Section 37) of the Constitution.

Iyamu further argued that the search was conducted without legal justification and caused humiliation and distress.

“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 said.

He also cited Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 481, noting that courts condemned vague warrants as giving unbridled discretion and leading to abuse, and referenced several other precedents supporting his arguments.

In the affidavit supporting the application, Mohammed Shaba, Principal Secretary to the former governor, stated that on February 19 at about 2 p.m., officers from ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force invaded the residence under a purported search warrant issued on or about February 4.

He said the warrant was invalid due to its lack of specificity, errors, and other defects as outlined in the suit.

Shaba noted that “the search warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for.”

He added that the officers failed to submit themselves for search as required by law before proceeding with the search.

Shaba said, “The Magistrate did not specify the magisterial district wherein he sits. 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. No items seized have been returned, and the respondents continue to rely on the unlawful evidence. The applicant suffered violations of his constitutional rights as a result, and this application is brought in good faith to enforce same.”