Headlines
Unlawful Invasion: El-Rufai Drags ICPC, IGP, Others to Court, Demands N1bn Damages
Former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, has slammed a ₦1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) for what he claimed was an unlawful invasion of his Abuja residence.
El-Rufai, in a suit filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja, also listed the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja Magisterial District; Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 2nd to 4th respondents respectively.
According to the suit filed through his lawyers, led by Oluwole Iyamu, El-Rufai prayed the court to declare that the search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT (2nd respondent), authorising the search and seizure at his residence as invalid, null and void.
Security operatives had stormed and searched the former Governor’s residence in the ongoing investigations against him.
However, he argued in the case marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, that the search was in violation of Section 37 of the Constitution, and 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 the suit dated and filed February 20 by Iyamu, ex-governor, who is currently under detention, 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 Feb. 19 at about 2pm and executed by agents of ICPC and I-G, “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.
“An order directing the Ist and 3rd respondents (ICPC and I-G) to forthwith return all items seized from the applicant’s premises during the unlawful search, together with a detailed inventory thereof.
“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.”
The breakdown of the ₦1 billion in damages includes “a N300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma, emotional distress, and loss of personal security;
“A ₦400 million as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies and vindicate the applicant’s rights.
“A ₦300 million 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 equally sought ₦100 million as the cost of filing the suit, including legal fees and associated expenses.
Iyamu 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 added that the warrant violated 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 and several other constitutional provisions.
“Section 146 stipulates that the warrant must be in the prescribed form, free from defects that could mislead, but the document is riddled with errors in the address, date, and district designation;
“Section 147 allows direction to specified persons, but the warrant’s indiscriminate addressing to “all officers is overbroad and unaccountable.
“Section 148 permits execution at reasonable times, but the contradictory language creates ambiguity, undermining procedural clarity,” he submitted.
Iyamu stated that the execution of the invalid warrant on Feb. 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.
“Evidence obtained without a valid warrant is unlawful and inadmissible, as established in judicial precedents such as C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137, where the court ruled that evidence procured through improper means contravenes fundamental rights and must be excluded,” he said.
In the affidavit in support of the application, Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, averred that on Feb. 19 at about 2p.m., officers from the ICPC and Nigeria Police Force invaded the residence under a purported search warrant issued on or about Feb. 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.
He said the “search warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for.”
Shaba stated that the officers failed to submit themselves for search as provided by the law before proceeding with the search.
“That the Magistrate did not specify the magisterial district wherein he sits.
“That during the invasion, the officers searched the applicant’s premises without lawful authority, seized personal items including documents and electronic devices, and caused the applicant undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress.
“Now shown to me and marked as ‘EXHIBIT B’ Is the list of the items carted away.
“That no items seized have been returned, and the respondents continue to rely on the unlawful evidence.
“That the applicant suffered violations of his constitutional rights as a result, and this application is brought in good faith to enforce same,” Shaba said.
Source: Naijanews.com
Iran’s military, on Saturday, declared the Strait of Hormuz closed again, hours after reopening it and with more than a dozen commercial ships passing through the vital waterway.
The toing and froing over the strait cast doubt on US President Donald Trump’s optimism the day before, that a peace deal to end the US-Israeli war with Iran was “very close”.
Tehran had on Friday declared the strait, which usually carries a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas, open on Friday after a ceasefire was agreed in Lebanon to halt Israel’s war with Hezbollah.
That prompted elation in global markets and sent oil prices plunging, but with Trump insisting that a US naval blockade of Iranian ports would continue until a deal was concluded, Tehran threatened to shutter the strait once more.
Then, late on Saturday morning, citing a statement from military central command, Iranian state TV reported that “control of the Strait of Hormuz has returned to its previous status” and “is under strict management and control of the armed forces”, blaming the continued US blockade.
The announcement came as maritime tracking sites showed several ships making a dash through the narrow waterway, hugging close to Iranian territorial waters as instructed by Tehran and, for some, broadcasting their identity as Indian or Chinese in an apparent attempt to show their neutrality.
The same sites showed that late on Friday, a number of ships began heading for the strait before suddenly turning back amid the uncertainty.
By 0900 GMT on Saturday, several ships had fully transited the strait in both directions, but at least two tankers headed eastwards from the Gulf towards India after loading in UAE ports appeared to have turned around and aborted their journeys.
There are just four days remaining before the end of the two-week ceasefire in the US-Israeli war with Iran, launched by Washington and its ally on February 28.
Nevertheless, President Trump appeared convinced that a deal could be finished shortly.
He declared Friday “GREAT AND BRILLIANT,” and made a series of social media posts praising talks mediator Pakistan.
Islamabad’s powerful military chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, on Saturday finished a three-day visit to Iran aimed at securing the peace deal, during which he met Iran’s top leadership.
While Munir was in Iran, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to push the peace process.
Islamabad has emerged as the lead mediator during the conflict, hosting a marathon round of direct peace talks last weekend attended by US Vice President JD Vance.
A second round of talks is expected in the Pakistani capital this coming week, with envoys hoping to end the war that was started by the US and Israel on February 28.
The allies launched a massive wave of surprise attacks on Iran, despite Washington and Tehran being engaged in diplomatic talks, that killed Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei and numerous senior leaders.
The war rapidly spread across the region, with Iran targeting US interests in the Gulf and Hezbollah dragging Lebanon into the conflict by launching rockets at Israel.
In a sign that the two-week ceasefire remained stable, Iran’s civil aviation agency declared its airspace was open again, with international flights able to transit Iran via the east of the country.
Nevertheless, two major sticking points in the peace talks — Iran’s stockpile of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium and the future of the Strait of Hormuz — appeared up in the air.
Speaking by phone with AFP on Friday, Trump said “we’re very close to having a deal,” adding that there were “no sticking points at all” left with Tehran.
Later the same day, at an event in Arizona, the president declared that Iran had agreed to hand over its 440 or so kilogrammes of uranium enriched to 60 percent — close to that needed for a bomb.
“We’re going to get it by going in with Iran, with lots of excavators,” he said.
But hours before, Iran’s foreign ministry had said its stockpile, thought to be buried deep under rubble by US bombing in last June’s 12-day war, was not going anywhere.
“Iran’s enriched uranium is not going to be transferred anywhere,” Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei told state TV.
“Transfer of Iran’s enriched uranium to the US has never been raised in negotiations.”
Ordinary Iranians, meanwhile, remained cut off from the international internet, with monitor netblocks announcing on Saturday that the blackout implemented at the start of the war had reached its 50th day.
AFP
Veteran journalist and chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Chief Dele Momodu, has declared that a joint presidential ticket between Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi represents the strongest strategy for the opposition to defeat the ruling All Progressives Congress in the 2027 general elections.
Speaking on Politics Today on Channels Television, Momodu said the emerging ADC coalition is gaining momentum as a credible alternative to President Bola Tinubu’s administration, which he accused of promoting “one-man rule” and weakening democratic institutions.
Momodu argued that an Atiku–Obi ticket offers both experience and electoral appeal, noting that both politicians already command significant national followings from previous elections. He recalled their collaboration in 2019, adding that Obi’s performance in the 2023 presidential election provides a ready base of supporters that can be consolidated.
According to him, the coalition is further strengthened by the involvement of political heavyweights such as Rabiu Kwankwaso and Rotimi Amaechi, making it a formidable opposition alliance.
“The candidates who placed second, third, and even fourth are aligning. That naturally builds a strong challenge,” Momodu said, suggesting that this development could unsettle the APC ahead of 2027.
He also accused the Tinubu administration of centralising power and undermining democratic processes, claiming that key institutions—including the legislature and electoral system—are increasingly influenced by the executive arm of government. He warned that such a trend poses risks to Nigeria’s democracy.
Momodu further alleged that opposition parties face systemic obstacles, including difficulties in accessing venues, legal pressures, and institutional interference. He argued that these challenges have made opposition unity not just strategic, but necessary.
Dismissing concerns about possible cracks within the ADC coalition, Momodu described such fears as speculative, insisting that current political realities have effectively forced major opposition figures to work together.
The Supreme Court has scheduled hearing for April 22 in the appeal filed by the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Senator David Mark, in relation to the leadership dispute in the party.
Mark’s appeal is against the March 12 judgment of the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal against the September 4, 2025 ruling by Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja refusing to grant some injunctive reliefs contained in an ex-parte application filed by a chieftain of the party, Nafiu Bala Gombe.
A five-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Mohammed Garba chose the date on Tuesday after granting accelerated hearing in the appeal marked: SC/CV/180/2026.
The court ordered Mark’s lawyer, Jibril Okutepa (SAN) to file the appellant’s brief and serve on Wednesday.
It ordered the respondents to each file and serve on the appellant, a respondent’s brief within three days of being served with the appellant’s brief.
The appellant, according to the court, is to file a reply brief, if needs be, within one day of being served with the respondents’ briefs.
