A Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned proceedings in the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, after the applicant’s counsel informed the court that the respondents had not been served with the court processes.
The case, which seeks N1 billion in damages over an alleged unlawful search of El-Rufai’s Abuja residence, could not proceed on Tuesday as no legal representative appeared for any of the four respondents named in the suit.
When the matter was called before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, only Ubong Akpan, counsel for the applicant, was present in court. There was no representation for the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the Federal Capital Territory, the Inspector-General of Police, or the Attorney-General of the Federation, who are listed as the 1st to 4th respondents respectively.
Akpan informed the court that although the case was slated for mention, the respondents had yet to be served with the court processes. He consequently sought an adjournment to enable proper service to be effected on all parties.
Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the matter until March 11, 2026, for further mention, according to court proceedings.
The fundamental rights enforcement suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, was filed on February 20, 2026, by El-Rufai’s lead counsel, Oluwole Iyamu. The former governor is seeking multiple declarations and remedies arising from a search operation conducted at his residence by operatives of the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force.
According to court documents, the originating motion challenges the validity of a search warrant issued on February 4, 2026, by the Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrate’s Court. The warrant authorised the search and seizure of items from El-Rufai’s residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja.
El-Rufai is praying the court to declare that the search warrant is “invalid, null and void” on several grounds. He contends that the warrant lacked particularity, contained material drafting errors, was ambiguous in its execution parameters, overbroad in scope, and unsupported by probable cause.
The applicant argues that these alleged defects render the search and subsequent seizure of items a violation of his fundamental rights, particularly his right to privacy as guaranteed under Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The former governor further alleges that the actual execution of the warrant on February 19, 2026, at about 2pm, constituted a gross violation of his fundamental rights. According to his filings, the operation by ICPC operatives and police officers resulted in an invasion of his residence that breached his rights to the dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy.
These rights are protected under Sections 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the 1999 Constitution respectively. Section 34 guarantees the dignity of the human person and prohibits torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Section 35 protects personal liberty. Section 36 ensures the right to fair hearing. Section 37 provides that the privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications is guaranteed and protected.
Beyond the declaratory reliefs, El-Rufai is seeking several specific orders from the court. He wants the court to direct the ICPC and the Inspector-General of Police to immediately return all items seized from his residence during the February 19 operation, accompanied by a detailed inventory of the recovered property.
The applicant is also praying for an order restraining the respondents and their agents from further relying on, using or tendering any evidence or items seized during the search in any investigation, prosecution or proceedings involving him. He contends that any evidence obtained pursuant to the allegedly invalid warrant is inadmissible, having been procured in breach of constitutional safeguards.
The monetary claim of N1 billion is broken down into specific components in the court filings. El-Rufai is seeking N300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma, emotional distress and loss of personal security allegedly suffered as a result of the search operation.
He claims N400 million as exemplary damages, which he argues are necessary to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies. An additional N300 million is sought as aggravated damages for what he describes as the malicious, high-handed and oppressive conduct of the respondents.
The claim also includes N100 million as the cost of filing the suit, covering legal fees and associated expenses.
In the grounds of argument supporting the application, Iyamu contends that the search warrant issued on February 4 was fundamentally defective under Nigerian law. He argues that the warrant allegedly lacked specificity in the description of items to be seized, contained typographical errors, had ambiguous execution terms, and included overbroad directives without verifiable probable cause.
The counsel specifically invoked Sections 143 to 148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, which govern the issuance and execution of search warrants in criminal matters. Section 143 of the ACJA requires that an application for a search warrant be supported by information in writing and on oath, setting out the grounds for the application and the purpose for which the warrant is sought. The provision mandates that the applicant must disclose the facts on which the suspicion is based and the reasons for believing that a search warrant is necessary.
Section 144 of the ACJA further mandates a particular description of the place to be searched and the items sought, explicitly providing that a warrant shall not be issued authorising a search for items that are not sufficiently described. This provision is designed to prevent the issuance of general warrants that give law enforcement agencies unchecked discretion over what may be seized.
Iyamu argues that the warrant in question fell short of these statutory requirements, allegedly referring vaguely to “the thing aforesaid” without adequate detail or particularity. He further contends that the warrant contravened Section 36 of the ICPC Act, 2000, which governs the commission’s investigative powers and procedures.
The applicant maintains that the execution of the allegedly defective warrant on February 19 resulted in an unlawful invasion of his client’s residence and inflicted humiliation and distress, forming the basis for the claim for damages.
The fundamental rights suit represents one front in El-Rufai’s broader legal engagement with anti-corruption agencies. The former governor, who served two terms as Kaduna State governor from 2015 to 2023 under the platform of the All Progressives Congress, has been under investigation by both the ICPC and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission since his defection to the opposition African Democratic Congress.
El-Rufai voluntarily honoured an invitation from the EFCC on February 16, 2026, and remained in the commission’s custody until the night of February 18. He was subsequently transferred to ICPC custody for further investigation over alleged financial misconduct during his tenure as governor.
The ICPC confirmed his transfer in a statement issued on February 18 by its spokesperson, J. Okor Odey. “The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission writes to state that Malam Nasiru El-Rufai, the former Governor of Kaduna state is in our custody as at close of work today Wednesday the 18th day of February, 2026. Malam Nasiru El-Rufai is in the custody of the Commission in connection with investigations,” the statement read.
The search of his Abuja residence on February 19 occurred while he remained in ICPC custody, a sequence of events that his legal team argues raises questions about the propriety of the investigation methods employed.
The investigations against El-Rufai are believed to be linked to financial transactions and projects executed during his eight-year governorship. In 2024, the Kaduna State House of Assembly had indicted him over alleged diversion of N423 billion and money laundering, recommending investigation by anti-graft agencies. El-Rufai has consistently denied the allegations and subsequently sued the Assembly, accusing it of attempting to damage his reputation.
The fundamental rights enforcement suit is brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, which provide a special mechanism for citizens to seek redress for violations of their constitutional rights. The rules, made pursuant to the powers conferred on the Chief Justice of Nigeria, are designed to ensure the expeditious and just determination of applications concerning the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules requires that an application for the enforcement of fundamental rights may be made by any person who alleges that any of the fundamental rights provided for in Chapter IV of the Constitution has been, is being, or is likely to be infringed. The rules impose a duty on the court to proactively pursue enforcement of rights and to ensure that applications are heard and disposed of promptly.
The rules also provide for the award of damages where a violation is established. The Supreme Court has held in numerous decisions that damages for fundamental rights violations are intended to be compensatory, exemplary, and deterrent, aimed at vindicating the injured person’s right and preventing future abuses by state actors.
The four respondents named in the suit represent different layers of the state apparatus involved in the search operation and the legal framework underpinning it.
The ICPC, as the 1st respondent, is the primary investigative agency that conducted the search and seizure operation. Established by the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000, the commission is empowered to investigate and prosecute corruption cases. Section 36 of the ICPC Act grants the commission powers of search and seizure, subject to obtaining a warrant from a magistrate or judge where necessary.
The Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, as the 2nd respondent, issued the search warrant that El-Rufai is challenging. Magistrates in the FCT exercise limited criminal jurisdiction and are empowered under the ACJA and the Magistrate Courts Act to issue search warrants in appropriate cases. The inclusion of the Chief Magistrate as a respondent is significant because it directly challenges the judicial officer’s exercise of power in issuing the warrant.
The Inspector-General of Police, as the 3rd respondent, heads the Nigeria Police Force, whose operatives participated in the search operation alongside ICPC personnel. The police have concurrent powers with the ICPC under various statutes to execute search warrants and maintain security during such operations.
The Attorney-General of the Federation, as the 4th respondent, is the chief law officer of the federation and has constitutional responsibility for instituting, undertaking, taking over, continuing or discontinuing criminal proceedings against any person before any court of law in Nigeria. The AGF’s inclusion reflects the broader implications of the case for criminal justice administration.
The adjournment until March 11 means that the substantive issues raised in El-Rufai’s application will not be heard until service is properly effected on all respondents. Under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, service of court processes is a critical precondition for the court to assume jurisdiction over the respondents.
Order VII of the rules prescribes the mode of service, requiring that applications be served personally on the respondents unless the court directs otherwise. Where a respondent is a government department or agency, service may be effected on the solicitor general or the legal department of the relevant ministry or agency.
Once service is effected and respondents are represented, the court will proceed to hear the application on its merits. The respondents are entitled to file counter-affidavits and written addresses in response to El-Rufai’s allegations. The court will then determine whether the search warrant was validly issued, whether the execution of the warrant violated the applicant’s fundamental rights, and if so, what remedies are appropriate.
The case raises fundamental questions about the balance between the state’s power to investigate crime and the citizen’s constitutional right to privacy and protection from arbitrary state action. The outcome will have implications not only for El-Rufai’s ongoing legal battles but for the broader framework governing search and seizure operations by law enforcement agencies in Nigeria.
