El-Rufai’s N1 Billion Lawsuit Hits Snag: Court Finds Holes in Ex-Governor’s Rights Claim

The Federal High Court in Abuja has identified significant procedural deficiencies in the fundamental rights lawsuit brought by former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission and four co-respondents. Justice Joyce Abdulmalik highlighted the irregularities Wednesday after El-Rufai’s legal representative, Ugochukwu Nnakwu, disclosed his failure to properly serve the magistrate listed as the second respondent in the proceedings.

During Wednesday’s session, all parties appeared except the second respondent. Isaac Akwo, representing ICPC, requested the court postpone proceedings until midday to allow his senior colleague, Abdu Mohammed (SAN), currently at the Supreme Court, to handle the case. Justice Abdulmalik rejected this request due to a prior commitment. The judge then questioned the status of the second respondent’s service. Nnakwu acknowledged that “service has not been completed on the second respondent” and indicated he had submitted an application for substituted service. As Nnakwu began presenting his substituted service motion, Justice Abdulmalik interjected, instructing him to identify the specific chief magistrate referenced in the suit. “Your application must contain his name,” the judge clarified.

Acknowledging the oversight, Nnakwu requested an adjournment to correct the procedural error. Counsel for other respondents, including R.N. Maiguru representing the Inspector-General of Police and Chima Augustine for the Attorney-General of the Federation, raised no objections. Justice Abdulmalik rescheduled the matter for March 31 to hear pending motions and directed that proper hearing notices be issued and delivered to the second respondent. El-Rufai seeks N1 billion in compensation from ICPC, the Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrate’s Court, the IGP, and the AGF, designated as first through fourth respondents. The former governor’s originating motion, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026 and filed February 20 through Oluwole Iyamu (SAN), contains seven specific demands.

He requests judicial declaration that the February 19 raid on his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, conducted around 2pm by ICPC and IGP personnel, constitutes severe infringement of his constitutional protections. El-Rufai contends the operation violated his rights to human dignity, personal freedom, fair hearing, and privacy guaranteed under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the constitution. He wants the court to rule that “all evidence collected through the aforementioned illegitimate warrant and illegal search is inadmissible in any legal action against the applicant, having been acquired through constitutional violations.” El-Rufai consequently seeks injunctive relief preventing respondents and their representatives from utilizing, referencing, or presenting any materials confiscated during the contested search in investigations, prosecutions, or legal proceedings against him.

He demands immediate return of all seized property from ICPC and the IGP, accompanied by comprehensive documentation of confiscated items. Additionally, he requests N1 billion covering general, exemplary, and aggravated damages. In response, ICPC’s counter affidavit states it received allegations against El-Rufai and initiated investigations based on this petition, culminating in the residential search. The commission maintains its agents operated under legitimate authorization issued February 18 and executed February 19 between 1:37pm and 3:56pm at 12 Mambilla Street, Asokoro, Abuja.

ICPC confirms Nigeria Police Force personnel accompanied its officials, with the operation witnessed by El-Rufai’s wife, Hadiza El-Rufai, and son, Mohammed El-Rufai. The commission, urging dismissal of the suit, provided an inventory of allegedly recovered materials. Police opposition, documented in a counter affidavit sworn by Inspector Ewa Anthony, asserts statutory authority to detect, apprehend, investigate, and prosecute offenders. Law enforcement argues the search followed proper execution of a warrant from a competent judicial authority. Police dispute El-Rufai’s characterization of the warrant as invalid, maintaining it represents authentic judicial authorization. They contend officers adhered to all required legal protocols during warrant execution. According to police submissions, the applicant attempts to exploit judicial processes to evade legitimate security investigation and potential prosecution. They request complete dismissal of the suit.