Court Fixes December 2 for Judgment in El-Rufai’s ₦1 Billion Fundamental Rights Suit Against ICPC, Police and AGF
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday fixed December 2 for judgment in a ₦1 billion fundamental rights suit filed by former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the Inspector-General of Police and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik fixed the date after lawyers representing the respondents adopted their court processes and urged the court to dismiss the suit.
El-Rufai’s counsel, Ubong Akpan, was initially absent when the matter was called. The judge subsequently deemed the former governor’s processes adopted. Akpan arrived during the proceedings and apologised for his lateness, but the court informed him that his documents had already been deemed adopted.
Counsel to the ICPC, Abdul Mohammed, SAN, adopted the commission’s processes and asked the court to dismiss the case. The police, represented by Assistant Commissioner of Police Ezekiel Rimamsomte, and the Attorney-General of the Federation, represented by the Director of Civil Litigation and Public Law, Maimuna Lami-Shiru, also adopted their respective processes and sought the dismissal of the suit.
El-Rufai is seeking ₦1 billion in damages over the alleged unlawful invasion and search of his residence at 12 Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19.
In his originating motion, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026 and filed on February 20 by his lawyer, Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, the former governor asked the court to declare that the search violated his fundamental rights to dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing and privacy under Sections 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the Constitution.
He also asked the court to declare inadmissible any evidence obtained through what he described as an invalid search warrant and unlawful search.
Additionally, El-Rufai sought an injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from using or tendering any items seized during the operation in investigations, prosecutions or other proceedings involving him.
He further requested the immediate return of all seized items, accompanied by a detailed inventory, as well as ₦1 billion in general, exemplary and aggravated damages.
The former governor initially included the Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrate’s Court as a respondent. However, he later dropped the magistrate after the judge observed that he had failed to identify the judicial officer by name.
In its counter-affidavit, the ICPC maintained that it acted on a petition received against El-Rufai and commenced an investigation that led to the search of his residence.
The commission insisted that its operatives acted under a valid search warrant issued on February 18 and executed the following day between 1:37 p.m. and 3:56 p.m. at the Abuja property.
According to the ICPC, its officials were accompanied by police personnel, while El-Rufai’s wife, Hadiza, and son, Mohammed, witnessed the operation. The commission also listed items it claimed were recovered from the residence.
The Inspector-General of Police, in his counter-affidavit deposed to by Inspector Ewa Anthony, argued that the police had the statutory authority to detect, arrest, investigate and prosecute offenders.
He maintained that the search was conducted pursuant to a genuine warrant issued by a competent court and that the officers involved complied with the applicable legal procedures.
The police chief further accused El-Rufai of attempting to use the court to shield himself from security investigations and possible prosecution.
Meanwhile, the Attorney-General of the Federation denied being privy to the facts surrounding the alleged search but argued that the ICPC and the police acted within their statutory powers.
He maintained that the seized items were required to facilitate the investigation and described El-Rufai’s suit as an abuse of court process, alleging that two other cases concerning the same subject matter were pending before the FCT High Court.
The Attorney-General also argued that the former governor had failed to provide sufficient legal and evidential grounds to justify the reliefs sought.
All three respondents urged the court to dismiss the suit. Justice Abdulmalik subsequently adjourned the matter until December 2 for judgment.
