EL-RUFAI’S N1BN CASE AGAINST ICPC, OTHERS DELAYED AS LAWYERS FAIL TO APPEAR
Read Time:3 Minute, 48 Second
By: Balogun Ibrahim
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday stalled the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and others, following the absence of counsel for the respondents.
According to The Media, El-Rufai is seeking N1bn in damages, claiming an unlawful search of his Abuja residence.
The suit, filed as FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, is before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik.
When the matter was called, only Ubong Akpan appeared in court representing the applicant, while the respondents had no legal representation.
Akpan told the court that, despite the case being scheduled for mention, the respondents had not yet been served with the court documents.
He requested an adjournment to allow for proper service.
Justice Abdulmalik then adjourned the matter to March 11 for further mention.
El-Rufai Challenges ICPC, Police, and Others Over Alleged Unlawful Abuja Residence Search
Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has dragged the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the Chief Magistrate of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Magistrate’s Court, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation to court as the 1st to 4th respondents, respectively.
In an originating motion filed on February 20 by his lead counsel, Oluwole Iyamu, El-Rufai is asking the court to declare that the search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate, authorising a search and seizure at his Abuja residence, is invalid, null, and void.
He contends that the warrant lacked specificity, contained material drafting errors, was ambiguous in execution, overbroad in scope, and unsupported by probable cause—making the search unlawful and unreasonable under Section 37 of the Constitution.
El-Rufai is also seeking a declaration that the invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 at around 2 pm by ICPC and police operatives amounted to a gross violation of his fundamental rights.
According to the former governor, the operation infringed on his rights to human dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy, as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the 1999 Constitution.
El-Rufai is also asking the court to declare that any evidence obtained under the allegedly invalid warrant is inadmissible in any proceedings against him, arguing that it was obtained in violation of constitutional protections.
He is seeking an order restraining the respondents and their agents from using, relying on, or presenting any evidence or items seized during the search in any investigation, prosecution, or legal proceedings involving him.
El-Rufai Seeks Return of Seized Items, N1bn in Damages Over Alleged Unlawful Abuja Search
Former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai has asked the court to order the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Inspector-General of Police to immediately return all items seized from his Abuja residence, along with a detailed inventory.
He is also seeking N1bn in general, exemplary, and aggravated damages. The breakdown of the claim includes:
- N300m as compensatory damages for psychological trauma, emotional distress, and loss of personal security;
- N400m as exemplary damages aimed at deterring future misconduct by law enforcement agencies;
- N300m as aggravated damages over what he described as the malicious, high-handed, and oppressive conduct of the respondents;
- N100m for legal costs and filing fees.
In his argument, lead counsel Oluwole Iyamu contended that the search warrant was fundamentally defective, citing lack of specificity regarding items to be seized, typographical errors, ambiguous execution terms, and overbroad directives without verifiable probable cause.
He argued that these alleged defects violated Sections 143 to 148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, Section 36 of the ICPC Act 2000, and constitutional protections against arbitrary intrusion.
Iyamu specifically noted that Section 143 of the ACJA requires any application for a search warrant to be supported by written and sworn information setting out reasonable grounds for suspicion—requirements he claims were absent in this case.
He further argued that Section 144 requires a precise description of the location to be searched and the items to be seized to prevent the issuance of general warrants. He claimed that the warrant in question was vague, referring only to “the thing aforesaid” without sufficient detail.
Iyamu insisted that the execution of the warrant on February 19 amounted to an unlawful invasion of his client’s residence, causing humiliation and distress.
The case is scheduled to be heard again on March 11.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0