By Nchetachi Chukwuajah
Former governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, has slapped a N1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Enforcement Commission (ICPC) over alleged invasion of his Abuja residence.
El-Rufai filed the suit at the Federal High Court, Abuja, through his team of lawyers led by Oluwole Iyamu (SAN).
He prayed the court to declare that the search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrates’ Court of the FCT, named as the second respondent, authorising the search and seizure at his residence was invalid, null and void.
In the suit, El-Rufai 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 former governor had, in the originating motion on notice, sued the ICPC as the first respondent, and named the Chief Magistrate, the Inspector General of Police and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as the 2nd to 4th respondents respectively.
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 February 19 and executed by agents of ICPC and IG, “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.
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.
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.
The lawyer, however, argued that the instant warrant vaguely referred to “the thing aforesaid” without any detail. clarity,” he submitted.
Iyamu stated 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 further argued that the search was conducted without legal justification and in a manner that inflicted humiliation and distress.
In the affidavit in support of the application, Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, averred that on February 19, officers from the ICPC and the Nigeria Police Force invaded the residence under a purported search warrant issued on or about February 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.
