A FEDERAL High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, seeking to restrain the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and other law enforcement agencies from freezing his bank accounts or seizing his assets.
News Point Nigeria reports that the presiding judge, Joyce Abdulmalik, dismissed the suit on Thursday after ruling that it constituted an abuse of court process.
Read also: EFCC Asks Court To Disregard Diezani’s UK Acquittal In Asset Forfeiture Suit
El-Rufai had instituted the action against the ICPC, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), listed as the first to fourth respondents, respectively.
In her ruling, Abdulmalik agreed with the respondents that the former governor had instituted similar suits before the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court and the Federal High Court.
The judge also held that the court could not be used to prevent law enforcement agencies from carrying out their statutory responsibilities.
Abdulmalik consequently described El-Rufai’s suit as speculative and lacking in merit.
The judge further ruled that the action disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the EFCC, DSS and AGF, and consequently struck out their names as respondents in the case.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/368/2026, was filed on February 24 by Oluwole Iyamu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).
In the suit, the former governor had asked the court to restrain the respondents from taking any steps to freeze his bank accounts or seize his assets pending the determination of the substantive case.
He also sought an interim injunction directing the respondents to maintain the status quo to prevent a fait accompli, or an irreversible action, before the court could determine the substantive issues.
El-Rufai argued that the severance pay he received after his tenure as governor, which lasted from 2015 to 2023, could not reasonably be suspected to constitute proceeds of unlawful activity.
He also asked the court to declare that properties purchased with the severance pay were lawfully acquired and owned by him.
Furthermore, the former governor sought a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from freezing, attaching, seizing, forfeiting or otherwise interfering with his properties and bank accounts.
He demanded N1 billion in general, exemplary and aggravated damages, citing the anticipated violation of his fundamental rights, psychological trauma, distress, anxiety and reputational harm allegedly arising from the threat of unlawful forfeiture proceedings.
Read also: Maiduguri Court Grants Bail To Five Arrested Over #TinubuMustGo T-Shirts
El-Rufai also sought N100 million as costs of the action, including legal fees and associated expenses.
However, in its preliminary objection, the ICPC urged the court to dismiss the suit, describing it as incompetent and a gross abuse of court process.
The commission argued that El-Rufai’s arrest, the search of his residence and the anticipated tracing and freezing of his assets all arose from a single, ongoing criminal investigation.
According to the ICPC, the former governor had instead fragmented his claims by filing three separate suits before two different court hierarchies within 12 days.
The commission stated that El-Rufai filed suit FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026 at the Federal High Court on February 20, challenging the search warrant and seeking the enforcement of his fundamental rights.
The ICPC further said he subsequently instituted another action, marked FCT/HC/CV/950/2026, before the FCT High Court on March 3, challenging a remand order and seeking the enforcement of his fundamental rights.
The commission maintained that the overlapping suits created the risk of conflicting decisions by courts of coordinate jurisdiction.
The DSS also urged the court to strike out the suit on the grounds that it was incompetent, while asking that its name be removed from the case because the action disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the service.
Similarly, the Attorney-General of the Federation, in his counter-affidavit, argued that the office of the AGF was only a necessary party in suits directly involving the Federal Government.
The AGF’s representative, Maimuna Lami-Shiru, Director of Civil Litigation and Public Law, also described the depositions contained in El-Rufai’s affidavit as speculative.
Lami-Shiru argued that an interim forfeiture order was not a final forfeiture order but rather a measure that could enable the ICPC to continue its investigation.
She maintained that an application for an interim forfeiture order did not, in itself, constitute a violation of El-Rufai’s rights.
Read also: Court Strikes Out Evidence Of Kyari Defence Witness Over Repeated Absence
The AGF’s representative added that the ICPC, EFCC and DSS were empowered to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for forfeiture orders in the course of their investigations.
She consequently urged the court to dismiss the suit, noting that El-Rufai had filed similar cases before both the FCT High Court and the Federal High Court.