Connect with us

Headlines

Unlawful Invasion: El-Rufai Drags ICPC, IGP, Others to Court, Demands N1bn Damages

Published

on

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

Continue Reading
Advertisement


Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Headlines

Tinubu Orders Arrest, Suspension of Three Perm Secs As ICPC Uncovers Another Fake Govt Agency

Published

on

President Bola Tinubu on Friday ordered the immediate arrest and suspension of three federal Permanent Secretaries over their alleged involvement in the operation of another fake agency uncovered by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).

ICPC Chairman, Dr Musa Adamu Aliyu, who disclosed this to newsmen after briefing President Tinubu on the latest findings from the commission’s ongoing investigation into fictitious agencies and weaknesses in public sector processes named the affected Permanent Secretaries to include M S Danjuma, Engr Nadungu Gagare, and Richard Pheelangwah.

The Commision’s latest discovery is coming barely few weeks after exposing the fictitious Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC).

According to Aliyu, the newly uncovered entity, operating as National Brands Development and Made-in-Nigeria Special Project Office, had allegedly secured office accommodation within the premises of the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF) without authorisation from the President.

The discovery, he said, was made during the broader investigation into the PFIPC, which President Tinubu had directed the ICPC to undertake.

The fake agency, according to ICPC boss, was promoted by Prince George Buchi Nwabueze, who allegedly operated under several variations of his name, including George Nathan Nwabueze, Honourable George Buchi Nwabueze, Prince George Buchi Nwabueze and George Buchi Nwabueze.

Aliyu disclosed that the commission was engaging relevant officials in the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation to establish how the purported agency came to operate from government premises and to obtain other vital information required for the investigation.
“I have briefed Mr President comprehensively on these new developments. ICPC will continue with its investigation,” he said.

Following the fresh findings, Aliyu said President Tinubu had directed the immediate arrest of Prince George Buchi Nwabueze, as well as the immediate suspension of the three named permanent secretaries.

The commission is expected to establish the roles played by the suspended officials and other individuals in the emergence and operation of the purported agency.

Aliyu said the latest discovery underscored the need for tighter controls and greater scrutiny of government institutions and internal administrative processes.

He commended President Tinubu for ordering a wider policy audit of federal agencies and government processes, describing the initiative as a proactive measure to strengthen the governance system.

His said: “President Bola Tinubu must be commended for the proactive step of directing the policy audit of MDAs and internal government processes towards strengthening government governance system.”

The latest development has widened the scope of the ICPC’s investigation into the proliferation of fictitious government entities and alleged exploitation of official structures by individuals seeking to create the impression of government authority.
The commission’s investigation into the PFIPC was initiated after the purported agency came under scrutiny, with the President subsequently directing the ICPC to unravel those behind its operations and determine whether public officials facilitated its activities.

With the discovery of another purported agency operating from government premises, the ICPC probe is now expected to examine broader institutional weaknesses that may have enabled unauthorised entities to gain access to federal government facilities and present themselves as legitimate government bodies.

Continue Reading

Headlines

2027: Atiku Promises to Restore Fuel Subsidy If Elected President

Published

on

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has promised to restore the petrol subsidy if he wins the 2027 presidential election.

Atiku made the pledge during an interview on Wednesday while questioning the use of funds he said were saved following the removal of the subsidy.

He said the policy could have been beneficial to Nigerians if the savings had been properly accounted for and invested in areas such as poverty reduction and education.

“I did not oppose the removal of the oil subsidy, but where is the money? Where did it go? It was intended to reduce poverty and help children attend school. Where is the money now? It seems they are just stealing it,” Atiku said in Hausa.

“If elected, I will bring back the oil subsidy, and whoever stole the money must refund it.”

The former vice president said he would also consider the removal of the subsidy if the funds generated from the policy were transparently used to address the country’s development challenges.

“The government successfully removed the subsidy, but we do not know where the money went. If they had used the money for development, to solve security problems, for education, and to create opportunities for the youth, it would be different. If elected, I can remove the subsidy and use the money to do all these properly.”

President Bola Tinubu announced the removal of the petrol subsidy during his inaugural address on May 29, 2023, before assuming office.

Continue Reading

Headlines

I’m Not Afraid of Anybody, Cardinal Onaiyekan Replies Presidency

Published

on

The Catholic Archbishop Emeritus of Abuja, Cardinal John Onaiyekan, has fired back at the Presidency over its criticism of his public account of a meeting between Catholic bishops and President Bola Tinubu, declaring that he did not appear on national television to please the government and was not afraid of anyone.

The 82-year-old cleric said he appeared on Arise News to tell Nigerians what he believed was the truth about the issues discussed during the bishops’ engagement with the President, insisting that neither his age nor criticism from government officials would silence him.

Onaiyekan spoke in a video shared by Symfoni TV on Wednesday, weeks after the Presidency criticised his decision to publicly disclose aspects of the meeting between the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) and Tinubu.

“I didn’t go to Arise to please the government, or to just please people, but to tell the truth. That’s all I stand for,” Onaiyekan said.

He also dismissed attacks against him on social media, saying he had no reason to engage those criticising him because other Nigerians had already responded on his behalf.

“I don’t have to respond to those attacking me on social media because other Nigerians have spoken on my behalf,” he said.

The cleric went further, declaring that he was not concerned about the possibility of being embarrassed or intimidated because of his advanced age.

“I cannot be embarrassed. I’m 82 years old; nobody can embarrass me. And I’m not afraid of anybody. Nobody, at this stage now, are they going to arrest me, carry me to where?” he declared.

Senior Special Assistant to President Bola Tinubu on Media and Publicity, Temitope Ajayi, who said his criticism of Cardinal John Onaiyekan was not intended to disrespect the cleric.

The controversy that followed a July 28 meeting between Tinubu and a delegation of the CBCN at the State House, Abuja.

The delegation was led by the CBCN President, Archbishop Matthew Man-Oso Ndagoso of Kaduna, and included Onaiyekan, Cardinal Peter Okpaleke, Bishop Matthew Kukah of Sokoto and other senior Catholic clerics.

During the meeting, the bishops raised a number of issues concerning the state of the nation, including economic hardship, insecurity, democracy, preparations for the 2027 elections, religious freedom and the return of mission schools.

Three days later, Onaiyekan appeared on Arise News and publicly recounted aspects of the engagement while speaking about the concerns expressed by the Catholic leadership over the condition of the country.

His comments subsequently attracted criticism from the Presidency. The President’s Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Temitope Ajayi, criticised the disclosure of details from the meeting, describing the engagement as a private interaction.

The Presidency’s reaction sparked a debate over the extent to which details of engagements between government and religious leaders should remain confidential, particularly when the discussions concern matters of public interest.

Onaiyekan, however, has maintained that his intervention was neither personal nor intended to embarrass the government. The cleric rejected any suggestion that he had presented a personal opinion during his television appearance.

According to him, the issues he discussed reflected the collective position of the Catholic bishops who participated in the engagement with the President.

“No, mind you, I didn’t talk on my own now. I spoke on behalf of my fellow bishops,” he said.

Onaiyekan disclosed that the bishops had prepared a joint statement containing the issues he subsequently discussed during the television interview.

“We drafted a statement which contained all that I said in the interview. So, all the bishops of Nigeria spoke that way. It was their voice I was echoing,” he stated.

Onaiyekan also emphasised that Catholic bishops remained entitled to speak within their respective dioceses about issues affecting Nigerians.

“I cannot speak on behalf of other religious leaders. Everybody has their own job to do, but many of the other religious leaders have supported us,” Onaiyekan said.

Onaiyekan also broadened his comments beyond the dispute with the Presidency, stressing that the economic difficulties confronting Nigerians could not be dismissed as a disagreement between the government and religious leaders.

He said the widespread poverty and suffering in the country affected everyone.

“When it comes to what is happening to Nigeria, the poverty, the suffering, we are all in the same boat now, abi?” he asked.

The cleric urged Nigerians not to take the country’s remaining space for public criticism and expression for granted.

“And we are still lucky in this Nigeria that we can still talk. We shouldn’t take that for granted. There are many countries in Africa where no bishop dares to talk like we do here,” he said

Meanwhile, Ajayi has sought to draw a line under the controversy, saying his earlier response to Onaiyekan was not intended to disrespect the Catholic cleric or the church.

Ajayi made the clarification during an interview on Arise TV on Thursday, days after criticising Onaiyekan for publicly discussing the details of the closed-door meeting between Tinubu and the CBCN.

The presidential aide said the matter had been resolved and insisted that there was no intention to disparage the respected cleric.

“Well, I think that episode has been closed. Cardinal Onaiyekan is a respected clergy and a statement in his own right,” Ajayi said.

He explained that his intervention was aimed at providing a different interpretation of the account given by the cardinal, rather than questioning his standing in the church or wider society.

“My response to him did not in any way disrespect him or disrespect his standing in the society and the church. He’s one of the leaders of the faith,” Ajayi said, adding that he only sought to offer another perspective on the account of the meeting between the bishops and the President.

“I only tried to provide a different perspective from his own account of the bishop’s encounter with the president, and I think that point has been made. And I think it’s not something we really want to dwell further on,” he said.

Continue Reading