El-Rufai Sues ICPC For ₦1bn Over Alleged Abuja Home Invasion

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 (ICPC) over the alleged unlawful invasion of his Abuja residence.

El-Rufai, through his team of lawyers 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, listed as the 2nd respondent in the suit.

In the originating motion on notice, the former governor sued ICPC as the 1st respondent, while the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja Magisterial District; the Inspector-General of Police (I-G); and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) were named as 2nd to 4th respondents respectively.

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

READ ALSO: ICPC Officials Raid El-Rufai’s Abuja Residence

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 urged 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, therefore, sought an order of 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 sought: “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.

“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.”

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 equally sought ₦100 million as 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 was in contravention of 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 argued 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 here as evidenced by the incomplete initiating clause.

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 stated that 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.

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.

The lawyer, who also cited the case of Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 481, said the court condemned vague warrants as affording unbridled discretion and leading to abuse. He equally gave a plethora of cases to back his argument.

In the affidavit in support of the application, Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, averred 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.

According to him, the said warrant is invalid due to its lack of specificity, errors, and other defects as outlined in the grounds of this application.

He said the “search warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for.”

Shaba stated that the officers failed to submit themselves for search as provided by law before proceeding with the search.

“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 same,” Shaba said.