Justice Joyce Abdulmalik on Wednesday shifted the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by former Governor of Kaduna State, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and four others to March 31.
When the matter was called on Wednesday, the second defendant, the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja, was not in court and was not represented by any counsel.
Counsel to the plaintiff, Ugochukwu Nnaku, told the court that the second defendant had not been served with processes in the matter and that the plaintiff had filed an ex parte motion on March 11 seeking to serve the originating process and other processes on the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja.
Meanwhile, the trial judge observed that the plaintiff, in his suit, failed to identify the second defendant — the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja — by name, adding that the name of the Chief Magistrate ought to have been included in the suit.
El-Rufai’s lawyer, who took the hint from the court, asked for a short adjournment to enable the plaintiff regularise his processes.
Without any objection from counsel to the respondents, Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the case until March 31 for the hearing of all pending applications.
In the suit, the former governor is demanding N1 billion in damages against the ICPC; the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja; the Inspector-General of Police (IGP); and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), listed as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.
Through his team of lawyers led by Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, the former governor is asking the court to declare that the search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate (2nd respondent), authorising the search and seizure at his residence, is invalid, null and void.
He is also 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.”
In the originating motion on notice marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, filed on February 20 by Iyamu, the former governor is praying the court to declare that the invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 at about 2 p.m. by the ICPC and the IGP amount to a gross violation of his fundamental rights.
He further 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, seeks 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 also seeks an order directing the 1st and 3rd respondents (ICPC and IGP) to forthwith return all items seized from his premises during the unlawful search, together with a detailed inventory thereof, as well as an order awarding him N1 billion as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages.
In his grounds of argument, the senior lawyer contended 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 argued that this was in contravention of Sections 143–148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015; Section 36 of the ICPC Act, 2000; and constitutional protections against arbitrary intrusions.
Iyamu specifically 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 in this case, as evidenced by the incomplete initiating clause. He added that Section 144 mandates particular descriptions of the place to be searched and the items sought to prevent general warrants.
He further argued that the warrant vaguely referred to “the thing aforesaid” without any detail, adding 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 also maintained that the search was conducted without legal justification and in a manner that inflicted humiliation and distress.