Former Gov. Nasir El-Rufai of Kaduna State has filed a N1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Enforcement Commission (ICPC) over alleged unlawful invasion of his Abuja residence.
El-Rufai, through his team of lawyers led by Oluwole Iyamu,
SAN, prayed the court to declare that the search warrant issued on Feb. 4 by
the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT (2nd respondent),
authorising the search and seizure at his residence was invalid, null and void.
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 the former
governor had, in the originating motion on notice marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026,
sued ICPC as 1st respondent.
El-Rufai named the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of
the FCT, Abuja Magisterial District; I-G and Attorney-General of the Federation
(AGF) as the 2nd to 4th respondents respectively.
In the suit dated and filed Feb. 20 by Iyamu, the detained
ex-governor 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 Feb. 19 at
about 2pm and executed by agents of ICPC and I-G, “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 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.”
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.
“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.
“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.”
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;
A N400 million as exemplary damages to deter future
misconduct by law enforcement agencies and vindicate the applicant’s rights.
A 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 also sought N100 million as the 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, 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.
“Section 146 stipulates that the warrant must be in the
prescribed form, free from defects that could mislead, but the document is
riddled with errors in the address, date, and district designation;
“Section 147 allows direction to specified persons, but the
warrant’s indiscriminate addressing to ‘all officers is overbroad and
unaccountable.
“Section 148 permits execution at reasonable times, but the
contradictory language creates ambiguity, undermining procedural clarity,” he
submitted.
Iyamu stated that the execution of the invalid warrant on
Feb. 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.
“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.
The lawyer, who also cited the case of Fawehinmi v. IGP
(2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 481, said the court condemned vague warrants as
affording unbridled discretion and leading to abuse.
He also presented a plethora of cases to support his
argument.
In the affidavit in support of the application, Mohammed
Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, averred that on Feb. 19 at
about 2p.m., officers from the ICPC and Nigeria Police Force invaded the
residence under a purported search warrant issued on or about Feb. 4.
According to him, the said warrant is invalid due to its
lack of specificity, errors, and other defects as outlined in the grounds of
this application.
He said the “search warrant did not specify the properties
or items being searched for.”
Shaba stated that the officers failed to submit themselves
for search as provided by the law before proceeding with the search.
“That the Magistrate did not specify the magisterial
district wherein he sits.
“That during the invasion, the officers searched the
applicant’s premises without lawful authority, seized personal items including
documents and electronic devices, and caused the applicant undue humiliation,
psychological trauma, and distress.
“Now shown to me and marked as ‘EXHIBIT B’ Is the list of
the items carted away.
“That no items seized have been returned, and the
respondents continue to rely on the unlawful evidence.
“That the applicant suffered violations of his
constitutional rights as a result, and this application is brought in good
faith to enforce the same,” Shaba said.
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com