By Newsheadline247
A Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed December 2 for judgment in Nasir El-Rufai’s N1bn fundamental rights suit against the ICPC, police and AGF
El-Rufai N1bn Suit Against ICPC: Court Fixes Judgment Date
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed December 2 for judgment in a N1bn fundamental rights suit filed by former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, the Inspector-General of Police and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The judge fixed the date after lawyers representing the respondents adopted their court processes and urged the court to dismiss the suit.
When the matter was called, El-Rufai’s lawyer, Ubong Akpan, was absent. Justice Abdulmalik subsequently deemed the former governor’s filed processes adopted.
Counsel for the ICPC, Abdul Mohammed (SAN), adopted the commission’s processes and urged the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety. The lawyer representing the Inspector-General of Police, ACP Ezekiel Rimamsomte, and the Director of Civil Litigation and Public Law, Maimuna Lami-Shiru, who appeared for the Attorney-General of the Federation, also adopted their respective processes and sought the dismissal of the case.
Akpan arrived in court while proceedings were ongoing and apologised for his lateness. When he sought permission to adopt the documents filed on behalf of his client, the judge informed him that the processes had already been deemed adopted.
The court consequently adjourned the matter until December 2 for judgment.
El-Rufai is seeking N1bn in general, exemplary and aggravated damages over the search of his Abuja residence by operatives of the ICPC and the police in February.
In his suit, the former governor asked the court to declare that the search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, amounted to a violation of his fundamental rights to dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing and privacy under Sections 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
He also sought an order directing the ICPC and the Inspector-General of Police to return all items seized during the search, alongside a detailed inventory of the recovered property.
The ICPC, in its counter-affidavit, said it received a petition against El-Rufai and commenced an investigation, which led to the search of his residence.
The commission maintained that its operatives acted under a valid search warrant issued on February 18 and executed on February 19, between 1:37 pm and 3:56 pm, at 12 Mambilla Street, Asokoro, Abuja.
According to the ICPC, its officials were accompanied by police personnel during the operation, which was witnessed by El-Rufai’s wife, Hadiza El-Rufai, and his son, Mohammed El-Rufai.
The commission listed items it said were recovered from the residence and urged the court to dismiss the former governor’s suit.
The Inspector-General of Police, in a counter-affidavit deposed to by Inspector Ewa Anthony, argued that the police had statutory powers to detect, arrest, investigate and prosecute offenders.
He maintained that the search was conducted pursuant to a warrant issued by a competent court and rejected El-Rufai’s contention that the warrant was invalid.
The police chief further argued that the former governor was seeking to use the court to shield himself from security investigations and possible prosecution. He urged the court to dismiss the suit.
The Attorney-General of the Federation, represented by Lami-Shiru, denied being privy to the facts surrounding the alleged violations but argued that the ICPC and the police acted within their statutory powers.
He maintained that the items seized from El-Rufai were required to enable the agencies to conclude their investigation.
The AGF also argued that the suit amounted to an abuse of court process, claiming that the former governor had two pending cases on the same subject matter before the FCT High Court.
He further submitted that the suit lacked merit, arguing that there was no sufficient legal or evidential basis for the reliefs sought, and asked the court to dismiss the case.
