El-Rufai Sues ICPC, Challenges "Invalid" Search Warrant in Human Rights Suit

 

Nasir El-Rufai 

Former Kaduna State Governor, Malam Nasir El-Rufai, has officially dragged the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and several top federal authorities to court following a controversial raid on his residence. In a lawsuit filed at the Federal High Court seeking the enforcement of his fundamental rights, El-Rufai is challenging the validity of the search warrant used during the February 19, 2026, operation. The case joins the ICPC alongside the Chief Magistrate of the FCT, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation as respondents, setting the stage for a high-profile legal battle over constitutional safeguards and due process.

​According to a statement released on February 23, 2026, by his Media Adviser, Muyiwa Adekeye, El-Rufai’s legal team contends that the search warrant was fundamentally defective and lacked the specificity required by law. The filing argues that the document was riddled with "material drafting errors, ambiguity in execution parameters, and a lack of probable cause." More so, the former governor is asking the court to declare that the invasion of his home based on such a flawed document constitutes a gross violation of his rights to dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy, as protected under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Nigerian Constitution.

​However, the legal challenge goes beyond just the search itself, as El-Rufai is seeking an order to ensure that any evidence obtained during the "unlawful search" is deemed inadmissible in any future proceedings. His lawyers argue that the warrant violated several sections of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, specifically noting that it failed to provide a particular description of the items sought and contained contradictory language regarding its execution. Consequently, Malam El-Rufai is seeking an injunction to restrain the respondents from using any seized items, an order for the immediate return of all property taken, and various damages for the intrusion. This case highlights a growing tension between anti-graft agencies and high-profile figures over the boundaries of investigative powers and the sanctity of constitutional protections against arbitrary state action.