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) over what he described as an unlawful search of his Abuja residence.
The suit, filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja, also names the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as respondents.
Through his legal team led by Oluwole Iyamu, El-Rufai is asking the court to nullify the search warrant allegedly issued on February 4 by the FCT Chief Magistrate, which authorised security operatives to search his home.
The former governor contends that the warrant was fundamentally defective and that its execution on February 19 amounted to a violation of his constitutional rights.
In The Beginning
Security operatives had reportedly stormed and searched his residence as part of ongoing investigations.
Marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, the suit argues that the warrant contravened Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy. El-Rufai is seeking a declaration that the warrant was invalid due to lack of specificity, drafting errors, ambiguous execution terms, excessive breadth, and absence of probable cause.
He further maintains that the search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, carried out around 2pm on February 19, constituted breaches of his rights to dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy as enshrined in Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.
Among the reliefs sought, El-Rufai is asking the court to rule that any evidence obtained during the search is inadmissible in any legal proceedings against him, on the grounds that it was procured through unconstitutional means.
He is also requesting an order restraining the ICPC and the police from relying on or presenting any materials seized during the operation.
El-Rufai Issues More Demands
Additionally, he wants the court to compel the ICPC and the Inspector-General of Police to immediately return all items taken from his residence, along with a comprehensive inventory.
The former governor is demanding ₦1 billion in damages.
The figure is broken down into;
₦300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma and emotional distress
₦400 million as exemplary damages intended to deter alleged future misconduct by law enforcement agencies; and
₦300 million as aggravated damages for what he described as the oppressive and malicious execution of a defective warrant.
He is also seeking ₦100 million to cover legal costs and associated expenses.
Iyamu argued that the search warrant violated provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 and the ICPC Act 2000.
The Legal Precedent
According to him, the document failed to clearly identify items to be seized, contained typographical and address errors, and was indiscriminately directed to “all officers,” making it overly broad and procedurally flawed.
He further cited legal precedent, including the case of C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969), to support the claim that evidence obtained through improper or unconstitutional means should be excluded.
In an affidavit supporting the application, Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to El-Rufai, alleged that officers of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force executed the warrant without complying with procedural safeguards, including the requirement that officers submit themselves for search before conducting the operation.
Shaba stated that the warrant did not clearly specify the items sought and that the officers seized documents and electronic devices during the search, causing humiliation and distress to the former governor.
He added that none of the confiscated items had been returned and that the respondents continue to rely on materials obtained during the operation.
Also Read: Kano State Unveils Toll Gate Plan to Strengthen Security
El-Rufai maintains that the court action is aimed at enforcing his fundamental rights and challenging what he describes as an unconstitutional intrusion into his private residence.