Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has approached the Federal Capital Territory High Court, seeking ₦1 billion in damages over what he described as the unlawful invasion and search of his Abuja residence by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
In the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed on February 20 through his lead counsel, Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, El-Rufai is challenging the validity of a search warrant issued on February 4 by a Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the FCT.
The former governor listed the ICPC as the 1st respondent, while the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, the Inspector-General of Police (I-G), and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) were named as 2nd to 4th respondents.
In the originating motion on notice, El-Rufai asked the court to declare that the warrant authorising the search and seizure at his residence was invalid and unconstitutional.
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.”
El-Rufai further asked the court to declare that the search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, carried out on February 19 at about 2 p.m. by officers of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force, “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 also 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.”
Consequently, El-Rufai sought an order 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.”
In addition, the former governor is seeking ₦1,000,000,000.00 (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.”
He broke down the claim to include ₦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 the applicant’s rights; and ₦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.
El-Rufai 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 warrant was fundamentally defective, lacking specificity, containing typographical errors, ambiguous execution terms, overbroad directives, and “no verifiable probable cause.”
He argued that Section 143 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, requires that an application for a search warrant be supported by information in writing and on oath, “which was absent here as evidenced by the incomplete initiating clause.”
Iyamu further argued that while Section 144 mandates particular descriptions of the place to be searched and the items sought, the warrant in question vaguely referred to “the thing aforesaid” without details.
According to him, “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.”
He added that “Section 147 allows direction to specified persons, but the warrant’s indiscriminate addressing to ‘all officers’ is overbroad and unaccountable,” while “Section 148 permits execution at reasonable times, but the contradictory language creates ambiguity, undermining procedural clarity.”
Iyamu maintained that the execution of the warrant amounted to an unlawful invasion, adding that “evidence obtained without a valid warrant is unlawful and inadmissible,” citing C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137 and Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 481.
In an affidavit supporting the suit, Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, stated that officers of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force invaded the residence on February 19 under a purported warrant issued on or about February 4.
He said the warrant “did not specify the properties or items being searched for,” adding that the officers failed to submit themselves for search as required by law before proceeding.
Shaba further stated 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.”
According to him, “no items seized have been returned, and the respondents continue to rely on the unlawful evidence,” adding that the application was filed “in good faith to enforce” the former governor’s constitutional rights.
About the Author
