Citybuzznews

  The fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission and others was on Tuesday, stalled at the Federal High Court in Abuja due to the absence of counsel for the respondents. El-Rufai is seeking N1bn in damages over what he described as an unlawful search of his Abuja residence. The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, is before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik. When the matter was called, only Ubong Akpan appeared in court for the applicant. There was no representation for the respondents. Akpan informed the court that although the case was slated for mention, the respondents had yet to be served with the court processes. He, therefore, sought an adjournment to enable proper service. Justice Abdulmalik subsequently adjourned the matter until March 11 for further mention. El-Rufai had dragged the ICPC, the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the Federal Capital Territory, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation to court as 1st to 4th respondents, respectively. In the originating motion dated and filed on February 20, by his lead counsel, Oluwole Iyamu, the former governor is praying the court to declare that the search warrant issued on February 4, by the Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrate’s Court, authorising the search and seizure at his residence is invalid, null and void. He is also asking the court to hold that the warrant lacked particularity, contained material drafting errors, was ambiguous in its execution parameters, overbroad in scope and unsupported by probable cause, thereby amounting to an unlawful and unreasonable search contrary to Section 37 of the Constitution. The applicant further prayed 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 2pm by operatives of the ICPC and the police constituted a gross violation of his fundamental rights. According to him, the action breached his rights to the dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing and privacy as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the 1999 Constitution. El-Rufai also urged the court to declare that any evidence obtained pursuant to the allegedly invalid warrant is inadmissible in any proceedings against him, having been procured in breach of constitutional safeguards. He is seeking 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. The former governor further asked the court to direct the ICPC and the Inspector-General of Police to immediately return all items seized from his residence, alongside a detailed inventory. He is equally seeking N1bn as general, exemplary and aggravated damages. The breakdown of the claim includes N300m as compensatory damages for psychological trauma, emotional distress and loss of personal security; N400m as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies; and N300m as aggravated damages for what he described as the malicious, high-handed and oppressive conduct of the respondents. He also claimed N100m as the cost of filing the suit, including legal fees and associated expenses. In his grounds of argument, Iyamu contended that the search warrant was fundamentally defective for allegedly lacking specificity in the description of items to be seized, containing typographical errors, ambiguous execution terms and overbroad directives without verifiable probable cause. He argued that the alleged defects contravened Sections 143 to 148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, Section 36 of the ICPC Act, 2000, and constitutional provisions protecting citizens from arbitrary intrusion. Specifically, counsel submitted that Section 143 of the ACJA requires that an application for a search warrant be supported by information in writing and on oath setting out reasonable grounds for suspicion, which he claimed was absent in the instant case. He further argued that Section 144 mandates a particular description of the place to be searched and the items sought in order to prevent the issuance of general warrants, but that the warrant in question vaguely referred to “the thing aforesaid” without adequate detail. Iyamu maintained that the execution of the warrant on February 19 resulted in an unlawful invasion of his client’s residence and inflicted humiliation and distress. The case is expected to come up again on March 11.   Punch