Legal Challenge to Search Warrant

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

Through his legal team led by Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, the former governor argued that the warrant was defective and unconstitutional. He urged 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.’

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that El-Rufai, in the originating motion marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, filed the case against ICPC as the first respondent. Also joined in the suit are the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja Magisterial District, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation, listed as second to fourth respondents.

Alleged Constitutional Violations

El-Rufai told the court that the invasion of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 at about 2 p.m. amounted to a serious breach of his constitutional rights. He asked the court to declare that the operation, carried out by agents of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police, ‘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 further urged the court to rule 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.’

Demands for Injunction and Return of Items

The former governor also sought an order restraining the respondents from using or relying on any items seized during the operation. He requested: ‘An order directing the Ist 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.’

El-Rufai is asking the court to award ₦1 billion as compensation for what he described as unlawful actions by the respondents. According to the suit, he is seeking: ‘An order awarding the sum of N1,000,000,000.00 (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 as follows: ₦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; ₦300 million as aggravated damages for what he described as malicious and oppressive conduct. In addition, he is demanding ₦100 million as the cost of filing the suit, covering legal fees and related expenses.

Legal Arguments and Warrant Issues

In his written address, Iyamu argued that the warrant failed to meet legal requirements under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 and the ICPC Act. He said the document lacked proper description of items to be seized, contained typographical errors, and was ambiguous in its execution terms.

According to him, Section 143 of the ACJA requires applications for search warrants to be supported by sworn information showing reasonable grounds, which he said was missing in this case. He also cited other provisions, arguing that the warrant did not clearly describe the premises and items to be searched; it was riddled with errors in address, date, and district; it was broadly addressed to ‘all officers,’ making it unaccountable; its execution terms were contradictory.

Iyamu maintained that the defects rendered the warrant invalid. The senior lawyer further argued that evidence obtained through unlawful means is inadmissible in court. He cited judicial authorities, including C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) and Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000), which, according to him, condemned vague and defective warrants.

In an affidavit supporting the application, Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, said officers from the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force invaded the residence on February 19 under what he described as a defective warrant. He stated that the warrant failed to specify the items being searched for and that officers did not submit themselves for search as required by law.

Shaba also said the issuing magistrate did not indicate the magisterial district; officers seized documents and electronic devices without lawful authority; the operation caused humiliation and psychological distress. According to him, a list of seized items has been attached as ‘EXHIBIT B,’ and none has been returned. He added: ‘That the applicant suffered violations of his constitutional rights as a result, and this application is brought in good faith to enforce same.’