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
Headlines
ADC Presidential Primary: Hayatu-Deen Alleges Rigging, Withdraws from Results Announcement
One of the presidential aspirants of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Mohammed Hayatu-Deen, says he will not attend the announcement of the party’s presidential primary election results, citing allegations of widespread vote rigging.
In a statement on his X handle on Tuesday, Hayatu-Deen expressed concern over reports of electoral irregularities from across the country.
The ADC aspirant noted that he witnessed some of the incidents.
“I will not be attending the announcement of the ADC Presidential Election Results today. I am concerned by reports from across the country of widespread vote rigging, some of which I myself observed, and will therefore be taking advice on my next steps,” the statement read.
The development comes amid keen competition for the ADC presidential ticket involving former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, former Minister of Transportation and former Governor of Rivers State, Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi, and Hayatu-Deen.
The ADC presidential primary election collation exercise will take place in Abuja. Results are expected from across the nation.
Ahead of the nationwide presidential primary held on Monday, the ADC had urged aspirants, party leaders, delegates, and members to conduct themselves peacefully and uphold party unity.
In a statement issued in Abuja on Sunday, the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, described the exercise as a defining moment for both the ADC and Nigerians seeking a credible political alternative.
According to him, the party remained committed to internal democracy and a transparent leadership selection process.
“The ADC remains proud to stand today as the only truly democratic party in Nigeria because it is the only political party whose choice of presidential candidate is determined through open primaries,” Abdullahi stated.
The party also stressed that the conduct of aspirants and party members during the exercise would reflect the leadership culture the ADC seeks to promote.
Headlines
You’re Not Different from APC, INEC, Amaechi Slams ADC, Rejects Presidential Primary Results
A former Minister of Transportation, Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi, has rejected the results of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential primaries, alleging widespread voter disenfranchisement and electoral malpractice.
Amaechi, in a statement posted on his X handle on Tuesday, described the outcome of the exercise as “concocted results.”
He said he had earlier made it clear that he would only accept the outcome of the primaries if the process was free, fair and transparent.
“I will not accept results from a process that does not reflect the values that the ADC had pledged to uphold,” he said.
Amaechi alleged that about 80 percent of party members across the country were prevented from voting during the exercise.
“There’s no way that about eighty percent of members of the party were not allowed to vote, and you expect me to accept such results,” he stated.
The former Governor of Rivers State accused the party of engaging in practices it had previously condemned in the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
According to him, the ADC cannot criticize vote buying, rigging and manipulation of election results by others while allegedly engaging in similar acts during its own primary.
Amaechi added that the development was unacceptable and contrary to the ideals upon which the party was founded.
A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit seeking to bar former President Goodluck Jonathan from contesting the 2027 presidential election, effectively clearing the way for him to participate in the polls if he chooses to run.
Justice Peter Lifu, who delivered judgment in the matter, held that the suit instituted by Johnmary Jideobi lacked merit and amounted to an abuse of court process.
The court further ruled that the plaintiff lacked the legal standing to institute the suit, noting that he failed to show how Jonathan’s possible participation in the election directly affected his interest.
Justice Lifu consequently awarded a total cost of N21 million against the plaintiff — N20 million in favour of Jonathan and N1 million in favour of the Attorney General of the Federation.
The judge described the suit as frivolous and a waste of judicial time, particularly after previous courts had already dismissed similar cases on the same subject.
He cited earlier judgments in Andy Solomon v. Jonathan at the Federal High Court and Cyracus Njoku v. Jonathan at the Court of Appeal, aligning with the decisions and stating that he had “nothing else to add.”
Justice Lifu also expressed dismay that the plaintiff and his counsel continued with the suit despite being aware of the earlier judgments.
The suit, filed in October 2025, sought a determination on whether Jonathan remained constitutionally eligible to contest the presidency in 2027.
The plaintiff argued that Jonathan had exhausted the constitutional two-term limit under Sections 1(1), (2), (3) and 137(3) of the 1999 Constitution, having completed the unexpired tenure of late President Umaru Yar’Adua between 2010 and 2011 before serving a full four-year term after winning the 2011 presidential election.
Jideobi had asked the court to restrain Jonathan from presenting himself as a presidential candidate and to stop the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from accepting or publishing his name as a candidate in the 2027 election or any future presidential contest.
The plaintiff also sought an order directing the Attorney General of the Federation to enforce the requested injunctions if granted.
During proceedings, counsel to the plaintiff maintained that Jonathan had served more than twice in office and was therefore constitutionally barred from seeking another term as president.
Jonathan, INEC and the Attorney General of the Federation were listed as defendants in the suit.
