Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has instituted a N1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) over the alleged unlawful invasion and search of his Abuja residence.

In the suit, El-Rufai is asking the court to declare invalid, null, and void the search warrant issued on 4 February by the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja Magisterial District, which authorised the search and seizure at his home.

The originating motion on notice, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, El-Rufai named the ICPC as the 1st respondent. The Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja Magisterial District; the Inspector-General of Police; and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) are listed as the 2nd to 4th respondents, respectively.

The suit, dated and filed on 20 February by his counsel, Mr. Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, seeks seven reliefs.

El-Rufai is urging 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.”

He further seeks a declaration that the invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on 19 February at about 2 p.m., executed by agents of the ICPC and the Inspector-General of Police under what he describes as an invalid warrant, amounted to a gross violation of his fundamental rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy, as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.

The former governor is also asking the court to declare that any evidence obtained pursuant to the allegedly invalid warrant and unlawful search is inadmissible in any proceedings against him, having been procured in breach of constitutional safeguards.

He is seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from relying on, using, or tendering any evidence or items seized during the search in any investigation, prosecution, or proceedings involving him.

In addition, he is requesting an order directing the ICPC and the Inspector-General of Police to forthwith return all items seized from his premises during the search, together with a detailed inventory.

El-Rufai is claiming N1,000,000,000 in general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against the respondents, jointly and severally, for alleged violations of his fundamental rights, including trespass, unlawful seizure, psychological trauma, humiliation, distress, infringement of privacy, and reputational harm.

He broke down the damages as follows: N300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma, emotional distress, and loss of personal security; N400 million as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies and vindicate his rights; and N300 million as aggravated damages for what he described as the malicious, high-handed, and oppressive nature of the respondents’ actions, including the use of a patently defective warrant procured through misleading representations.

He also seeks N100 million as the cost of filing the suit, covering legal fees and associated expenses.

In his grounds of argument, Iyamu contended that the search warrant was fundamentally defective, lacking specificity in its description of items to be seized, containing material typographical errors, ambiguous execution terms, overbroad directives, and no verifiable probable cause.

He argued that this contravened Sections 143–148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015; Section 36 of the ICPC Act, 2000; and constitutional protections against arbitrary intrusion.

Specifically, Iyamu submitted that Section 143 of the ACJA requires an application for a search warrant to be supported by written information on oath setting out reasonable grounds for suspicion, which he said was absent, as evidenced by what he described as an incomplete initiating clause.

He argued that Section 144 mandates a particular description of the place to be searched and the items sought in order to prevent general warrants, yet the warrant in question vaguely referred to “the thing aforesaid” without further detail.

According to him, Section 146 stipulates that a warrant must be in the prescribed form and free from defects that could mislead, but the document, he said, was riddled with errors in the address, date, and district designation.

He further argued that although Section 147 permits a warrant to be directed to specified persons, the indiscriminate addressing of the warrant to “all officers” was overbroad and unaccountable. In addition, he submitted that while Section 148 permits execution at reasonable times, contradictory language in the warrant created ambiguity and undermined procedural clarity.

Iyamu maintained that the execution of the warrant on 19 February resulted in an unlawful invasion of his client’s premises, violating his rights to dignity (Section 34), personal liberty (Section 35), fair hearing (Section 36), and privacy (Section 37) under the Constitution.

He contended 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.

Citing Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 481, Iyamu added that the court had condemned vague warrants as affording unbridled discretion and encouraging abuse. He also cited several other authorities in support of his argument.

In an affidavit filed in support of the application, Mr. Mohammed Shaba, described as a Principal Secretary to the former governor, averred that on 19 February at about 2 p.m., officers of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force invaded the residence under a purported search warrant issued on or about 4 February.

According to Shaba, the warrant is invalid due to its lack of specificity, errors, and other defects outlined in the application. He stated that the warrant did not specify the properties or items being sought.

He further averred that the officers failed to submit themselves for search, as required by law, before proceeding with the operation, and that the Magistrate did not specify the magisterial district in which he sits.

Shaba alleged that during the search, officers entered the premises without lawful authority, seized personal items, including documents and electronic devices, and subjected the applicant to undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress.

He added that a list of the items allegedly taken was attached and marked as “Exhibit B”, and that none of the seized items had been returned. He claimed that the respondents continued to rely on what he described as unlawfully obtained evidence.

He maintained that the applicant’s constitutional rights were violated and that the application was brought in good faith to enforce those rights.