The immediate past Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, has instituted a N1billion suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) and three others over what he claims was an unlawful invasion of his Abuja house.
Also listed as respondents in the fundamental rights enforcement suit, filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja and marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, are the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja Magisterial District; the Inspector General of Police (IGP), and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).
El-Rufai, who is querying the legality of the search carried out in his Abuja house by the ICPC, wants the court to declare that the search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, authorising the search at his residence was invalid.
He also wants the court to declare that the search warrant was “null and void for lack of particularity, material drafting errors, ambiguity in execution parameters, and absence of probable cause, thereby constituting an unlawful and unreasonable search in violation of Section 37 of the Constitution.”
El-Rufai is equally praying the court to declare that the alleged invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 at about 2 pm and executed by agents of ICPC and IGP, “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 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 contends that the search warrant, on which the ICPC allegedly acted, was fundamentally defective. It lacked specificity in describing items to be seized, contained material typographical errors, had ambiguous execution terms, included overbroad directives, and lacked verifiable probable cause.
He claimed that the ICPC acted in contravention of Sections 143-148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015; Section 36 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences (ICPC) Act, 2000, and constitutional protections against arbitrary intrusions.
El-Rufai is also contending 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 claimed 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.
The ex-governor added, “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.”
El-Rufai wants the court to issue 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.
“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.
“An order awarding the sum of N1,000,000,000.00 (as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against the respondents jointly and severally for violating the applicant’s fundamental rights, including trespass, unlawful seizure, and the resultant psychological trauma, humiliation, distress, infringement of privacy, and reputational harm).”