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 the alleged unlawful invasion of his Abuja residence.

In the originating motion on notice dated and filed on February 20 by his counsel, Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, El-Rufai 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 2nd respondent in the suit.

The former governor named ICPC as the 1st respondent, while the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja Magisterial District; the Inspector-General of Police (IG); and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) were listed as 2nd to 4th respondents respectively.

El-Rufai is seeking seven reliefs, including a declaration that the search warrant authorising the search and seizure at his residence is invalid, null and void. He urged the court to declare that the 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.”

He further 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 IG under the said warrant, amounts to a gross violation of his fundamental rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.

The suit also seeks a declaration 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 is asking the court to restrain the respondents and their agents from relying on or tendering any items seized during the search in any investigation, prosecution, or proceedings involving him. He also requested an order directing the 1st and 3rd respondents (ICPC and IG) to immediately return all items taken from his premises, along with a detailed inventory.

In addition, the former governor is demanding ₦1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion Naira) as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against the respondents jointly and severally for alleged violations of his fundamental rights, including trespass, unlawful seizure, psychological trauma, humiliation, distress, infringement of privacy, and reputational harm.

He broke down the ₦1 billion claim as follows:
• ₦300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma, emotional distress, and loss of personal security;
• ₦400 million as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies and vindicate his rights;
• ₦300 million as aggravated damages for what he described as the malicious, high-handed, and oppressive nature of the respondents’ actions, including the alleged use of a defective warrant procured through misleading representations.

He also sought ₦100 million as the cost of filing the suit, covering 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 the warrant contravened Sections 143–148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015; Section 36 of the ICPC Act, 2000; and constitutional safeguards against arbitrary intrusions.

According to him, Section 143 of the ACJA requires that an application for a search warrant be supported by information in writing and on oath, setting out reasonable grounds for suspicion — a requirement he said was absent as evidenced by the incomplete initiating clause.

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

Citing other provisions, he submitted: “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 stated that the execution of the warrant on February 19 resulted in an unlawful invasion of his client’s premises and violated his constitutional rights to dignity (Section 34), personal liberty (Section 35), fair hearing (Section 36), and privacy (Section 37).

He further argued that the search was conducted without legal justification and in a manner that inflicted 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.

Iyamu also cited Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 481, noting that the court condemned vague warrants as affording unbridled discretion and leading to abuse.

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

He averred that the warrant was invalid due to lack of specificity, errors, and other defects outlined in the application, adding that it did not specify the properties or items being searched for.

Shaba further deposed that the officers failed to submit themselves for search as required by law before conducting the operation, and that the Magistrate did not specify the magisterial district in which he sits.

He stated that during the search, officers allegedly acted without lawful authority, seized personal items including documents and electronic devices, and caused El-Rufai undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress.

“Now shown to me and marked as ‘EXHIBIT B’ is the list of the items carted away.

“That no items seized have been returned, and the respondents continue to rely on the unlawful evidence.

“That the applicant suffered violations of his constitutional rights as a result, and this application is brought in good faith to enforce same,” Shaba said.