The Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a fundamental rights suit filed by former Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai, over the search of his residence in the Federal Capital Territory.

El-Rufai had approached the court demanding N1 billion in damages, claiming that the search conducted at his Abuja residence violated his constitutional rights.

The suit was filed against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the Chief Magistrate Court of the Federal Capital Territory, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation.

The former governor is challenging the legality of the search carried out at his home located on Mambilla Street in the Asokoro area of Abuja. According to him, the operation led to the seizure of certain items by security agents.

In response to the lawsuit, the police chief filed a counter-affidavit urging the court to throw out the case. He argued that the search was carried out lawfully and in line with the powers granted to the police under Nigerian law.

The IGP maintained that the action was not arbitrary but followed due legal process. He told the court that officers involved in the operation acted on a valid search warrant issued by a competent court.

According to the police, the warrant authorised investigators to search the property as part of an ongoing investigation. The IGP insisted that the warrant was properly obtained and executed in accordance with laid-down procedures.

He also accused El-Rufai of attempting to use the court process to shield himself from investigation and possible prosecution. The police chief argued that law enforcement agencies have the statutory authority to detect crimes, investigate suspects, and prosecute offenders where necessary.

However, the former governor is disputing the legitimacy of the search warrant. In his suit, he is asking the court to declare that the warrant issued on February 4 by a Chief Magistrate in Abuja is invalid and should be set aside.

He claimed the document was poorly drafted and lacked sufficient details. El-Rufai further argued that the warrant did not clearly state the items to be seized and contained what he described as significant drafting errors and vague instructions.

The former governor also insisted that the operation carried out on February 19 by officials of the ICPC and police operatives amounted to a violation of his constitutional rights.

He is asking the court to declare that the search breached his rights to dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy as protected under relevant provisions of the Nigerian Constitution.

El-Rufai also claimed the incident caused him emotional distress, reputational damage, and humiliation. Based on these claims, he is seeking N1 billion in general and exemplary damages from the respondents.

During proceedings on Wednesday, the hearing was brief. El-Rufai’s lawyer, Ubong Akpan, informed the court that he had yet to file a response to the counter-affidavit submitted by the Inspector-General of Police. He noted, however, that he had already responded to the filing by the anti-corruption agency.

Following the update, counsel representing the police and the ICPC — Abdulsufianu Abubakar and Ezekiel Rimamsomte — did not object to a request for more time.

Presiding judge, Joyce Abdulmalik, subsequently adjourned the matter until March 25 for hearing.

The court also directed that hearing notices be issued and served on the Chief Magistrate of the FCT and the Attorney-General of the Federation, who were not represented during the session.

El-Rufai is relying on provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and the ICPC Act to support his claims. He argued that the laws require law enforcement agencies seeking search warrants to present sworn information that clearly outlines the grounds for suspicion and specifies the location and items involved.

According to him, the warrant used in the operation failed to meet these legal requirements, leading to what he described as an unlawful invasion of his residence.

The case is expected to resume later this month as the court begins hearing arguments from all parties Involved.