Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has dragged the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission to court, demanding N1 billion in damages over what he described as an unlawful raid on his Abuja home.
In a fundamental rights enforcement suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, El-Rufai is challenging the legality of a search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
The former governor is asking the court to void the warrant, arguing that it was defective and unconstitutional.
Represented by a legal team led by Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, El-Rufai contended that the warrant authorising the February 19 search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, was invalid.
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 News Agency of Nigeria reported that ICPC was named as the first respondent in the suit, while the Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrate’s Court, the Inspector-General of Police and the Attorney-General of the Federation were listed as the 2nd to 4th respondents.
In the application filed on February 20, the former governor is seeking seven reliefs, including a declaration that the invasion of his residence around 2pm on February 19 by ICPC operatives and police officers amounted to a breach of his fundamental rights.
He asked the court to declare that the operation, carried out “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.”
El-Rufai further urged the court to rule 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.”
He is also seeking an order restraining the respondents from using any materials seized during the search in any investigation or prosecution involving him.
“An order directing the Ist 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.
“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.”
The N1 billion claim, according to court filings, is broken down into N300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma and emotional distress; N400 million as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct; and N300 million as aggravated damages for what he described as malicious and oppressive conduct by the respondents.
El-Rufai is also demanding N100 million to cover the cost of filing the suit, including legal fees and related expenses.
In his legal arguments, Iyamu maintained that the warrant failed to meet statutory requirements under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, and the ICPC Act, 2000.
He argued that Section 143 of the ACJA mandates that an application for a search warrant must be supported by sworn written information establishing reasonable grounds for suspicion, which he said was absent.
He said Section 144 mandates particular descriptions of the place to be searched and the items sought, to prevent general warrants.
He, however, argued that the instant warrant vaguely referred to “the thing aforesaid” without any detail.
“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 submitted.
Iyamu also cited judicial precedents, including C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137 and Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 481, to argue that evidence obtained through defective warrants violates constitutional safeguards and should be excluded.
Supporting the application, Mohammed Shaba, described as a Principal Secretary to the former governor, deposed in an affidavit that officers of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force stormed the residence under a purported warrant issued on or about February 4.
He maintained that the document was fundamentally flawed and failed to specify the items sought.
Shaba stated that the officers failed to submit themselves for search as required by law before conducting the operation.
“That the Magistrate did not specify the magisterial district wherein he sits.
“That 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.
“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 the same,” Shaba said.
