The former governor sought a declaration that the properties purchased by him from his said severance pay were lawfully acquired and owned by him.
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Thursday dismissed the suit filed by a former governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, to seek an order restraining the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) and others from freezing his bank accounts.
The court, while dismissing the suit, held that the suit was speculative in nature and lacked merit, adding that the case did not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the EFCC, DSS and AGF, and subsequently struck out their names from the suit.
Daily Trust reports that the suit, dated February 23, 2026 and filed on February 24, 2026 by Oluwole Iyamu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, urged the court for an order of interim injunction directing the respondents to maintain the status quo ante.
Other respondents in the suit included the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Department of State Services (DSS) and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), who were joined as 2nd to 4th respondents respectively.
In the suit, El-Rufai argued that the order was necessary to prevent a fait accompli as recognised in previous cases, praying for a declaration that his severance pay, received upon the completion of his tenure as governor of Kaduna State between 2015 and 2023, cannot reasonably be suspected to be, proceeds of any unlawful activity.
The former governor sought a declaration that the properties purchased by him from his said severance pay were lawfully acquired and owned by him.
He listed the banks to include Zenith Bank Plc, Naira Account Number: 1007158671; Zenith Bank Pic, Domiciliary Account Number: 507 1511327; Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB) Plc (GTB), Account Number: 0023824978; Access Bank, Dollar Account Number: 1396386493 and Access Bank, Naira Account Number: 1396382103.
El-Rufai also sought a declaration that any attempt by the respondents to apply for, obtain or execute any interim or final forfeiture order, freezing order, without first establishing a reasonable suspicion supported by credible evidence as required by relevant law would amount to a breach of his rights.
Citing Section 17(1) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006 and the Supreme Court decision in Melrose General Services Ltd v. EFCC (2024) SC/1519/2019, El-Rufai prayed the court to declare that, as a citizen of Nigeria, is entitled to the presumption of innocence and the protection of his fundamental rights.
He said that any action by the respondents that seeks to circumvent these rights by way of ex-parte applications that conceal material facts would amount to a breach of Section 36(5) of the constitution and a violation of the principles of fair hearing.
The ex-governor, therefore, sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from taking any step whatsoever to freeze, attach, seize, forfeit, or otherwise interfere with his said property and bank accounts.
He sought an order awarding the sum of N1 billion “as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against the respondents jointly and severally for:
“The anticipated violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights; The psychological trauma, distress, anxiety, and reputational harm caused by the threat of unlawful forfeiture proceedings.
“The need to deter the respondents and other agencies from engaging in similar overreach, abuse of power, and disregard for constitutional safeguards.”
He equally sought an order awarding the sum of N100 million as costs of the action against the respondents, including legal fees and associated expenses.
The ICPC, in its preliminary objection filed by Abdul Mohammed, SAN, prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety for being “incompetent and a gross abuse of court process”.
The ICPC submitted that El-Rufai’s arrest, the search of his residence and the anticipated asset tracing and freezing all stemmed from a singular, continuous and ongoing criminal investigation by the commission.
It argued that rather than consolidating his grievances into a single, comprehensive action, the ex-governor deliberately engaged in forum shopping and the fragmentation of his claims by instituting three parallel suits across two different court hierarchies within a span of just 12 days.
Justice Abdulmalik agreed with the arguments of the ICPC, EFCC, DSS and AGF that a court of law cannot be used by any citizen to prevent law enforcement agencies from performing their statutory duties.