A former governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai’s rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and four others suffered a setback on Tuesday over the inability of his lawyer to serve the respondents.
Mr El-Rufai is demanding a N1billion in damages against the ICPC (1st respondent) and others.
They include the Chief Magistrate at the Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja; Inspector-General (I-G) of Police and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), named as 2nd to 4th respondents respectively.
The matter, which was before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, could not proceed shortly after it was called.
Upon resumed hearing, only Ubong Akpan, the counsel, who appeared for the ex-govenor, was in court, as there was no representation for the resoondents.
Mr Akpan, therefore, informed the court that though the matter was scheduled for mention, they had been unable to serve the redpondents.
He sought an adjournment to enable them do the needful and Justice Abdulmalik fixed March 11 for further mention.
Mr El-Rufai, through his team of lawyers led by Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, is praying the court to declare that the search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate, Magistrates’ Court of the FCT (2nd respondent), authorising the search and seizure at his residence was invalid, null and void.
He is asking the court to declare that the search warrant is “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, in the originating motion on notice marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, dated and filed February 20 by Iyamu, sought seven reliefs.
He prayed the court to declare that the invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February19 at about 2pm by the and ICPC and IG, amounts to a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights .
He said that it was violation 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.”
Mr 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 sought an order directing the Ist and 3rd respondents (ICPC and IG) to forthwith retum all items seized from the applicant’s premises during the unlawful search, together with a detailed inventory thereof.
He also sought an order awarding the sum of N1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion Naira) as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages.
Mr El-Rufai did the breakdown of the N1 billion in damages to include “a 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 the applicant’s rights.
“N300 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 a N100 million as cost of filing the suit, including legal fees and associated expenses.
In his grounds of argument, the senior lawyer argued 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 said this was 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.
Specifically, Mr 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.
Mr 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.
(NAN)
