Alleged rights violation: Fagbemi seeks dismissal of El-Rufai’s N1bn suit

Stay Connected

Follow Very Nigerian

Get the latest Nigerian news, trending stories and breaking updates directly on WhatsApp.

Join Our Channel →

The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a N1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai.

Fagbemi argued that the suit lacked merit and should be dismissed. The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Inspector-General of Police were also listed as respondents in the case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026.

El-Rufai, who served as Kaduna State governor from 2015 to 2023 and previously served as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory under former President Olusegun Obasanjo, instituted the suit over an alleged unlawful raid on his Abuja residence.

He specifically challenged the legality of the warrant the ICPC relied on to search his home.

He prayed the court to declare that the search warrant dated February 4, which the Chief Magistrate of the Magistrate’s Court of the FCT signed to authorise the search and seizure of items from his residence, was invalid, null, and void.

The former governor also sought a declaration that the search warrant was legally defective for lacking particularity, and for “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.”

Other reliefs he sought include a declaration that the invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 at about 2 p.m., executed by agents of the ICPC and the Inspector-General of Police under the 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.”

The Chief Magistrate, who was initially listed as the 2nd respondent, was subsequently delisted from the case by the applicant.

At the resumed proceedings on Monday, the AGF, through a lawyer from the Federal Ministry of Justice, Mrs Maimuna Lami-Shiru, notified the court of a counter-affidavit he had filed to challenge the competence of the suit.

The AGF, among other things, contended that the former governor failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action to warrant the grant of the reliefs he is seeking from the court.

While denying the allegation that the applicant’s rights were violated, the AGF insisted that both the ICPC and the IGP acted within the bounds of the law.

He, therefore, urged the court to dismiss the suit.

Meanwhile, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik adjourned the case until October 27 to allow El-Rufai’s lawyer, Akinyemi Aremu, to respond to the AGF’s counter-affidavit.

The ICPC had earlier urged the court to dismiss the suit, insisting it acted on the strength of a petition that was filed against the former governor.

The agency told the court that El-Rufai’s house was searched as part of its investigations into the petition, adding that its operatives acted with a valid search warrant issued on February 18.

The commission said its officials were accompanied by police officers and that the search was conducted in the presence of the applicant’s wife, Hadiza El-Rufai, and his son, Mohammed El-Rufai.

Likewise, the police, in their own counter-affidavit deposed to by Inspector Ewa Anthony, maintained that they had the statutory power to detect, arrest, investigate and prosecute offenders.

The police told the court that their officers lawfully executed a search warrant that was issued by a competent court.

El-Rufai currently faces multiple charges, including an allegation that he unlawfully intercepted the phone communications of the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu.

The ICPC had obtained court permission on March 12 to examine and analyse about 14 sets of electronic devices allegedly recovered when the former governor’s house was searched.

It disclosed that the recovered items included a Sony HD-EGS storage device; a 1TB Transcend storage device; a Toshiba storage device; a Samsung mobile phone; a Nokia mobile phone (96GB); a BlackBerry mobile phone; a Google IDEOS phone; a Samsung storage device (SPO802N); a reMarkable tablet; an Apple MacBook Pro (black); a Seagate FreeAgent desk external drive; a ZTE mobile phone; 10 flash drives; and a MicroSD memory card.

In his suit, El-Rufai prayed the court, among other things, to declare that any evidence obtained pursuant to the invalid warrant and unlawful search “is inadmissible in any proceedings against the applicant, as it was procured in breach of constitutional safeguards.”

He further applied for an 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.

El-Rufai also asked the court to direct the first and third respondents (ICPC and Inspector-General of Police) to return forthwith all items seized from his Abuja home during the unlawful search, together with a detailed inventory.

Likewise, he sought “an order awarding the sum of N1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion Naira) as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against the respondents, jointly and severally, for the violations of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including trespass, unlawful seizure, and the resultant psychological trauma, humiliation, distress, infringement of privacy, and reputational harm.”

From the total sum sought, the applicant explained that N300m would serve 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 vindicate the applicant’s rights; and N300m as aggravated damages for “the malicious, high-handed, and oppressive nature of the respondents’ actions, including the use of a patently defective warrant procured through misleading representations.”

He prayed to be awarded N100m to cover the cost of the litigation.