By TAIYE AGBAJE

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday dismissed a suit filed by former Gov. Nasir El-Rufai of Kaduna State seeking an order restraining the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and others from freezing his bank accounts.

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) sued as 2nd to 4th respondents respectively.

Justic Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, in a judgment, dismissed the suit for being an abuse of court process because the former governor had filed a similar suit in the FCT High Court.

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.

The judge held that the suit was speculative in nature and lacked merit.

She also agreed 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.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that El-Rufai, in the originating process marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/368/2026, prayed the court to restrain the respondents from taking any step to freeze his bank accounts or seize his assets, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

The suit, dated Feb. 23, was filed Feb. 24 by Oluwole Iyamu, SAN.

The ex-governor urged the court for an order of interim injunction directing the respondents to maintain the status quo ante.

He argued that the order was necessary to prevent a fait accompli as recognised in previous cases.

El-Rufai, therefore, prayed 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.

He 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.

He 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.

He cited the law as 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-govenor 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.

It said that besides the instant suit, the applicant filed suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026 on Feb. 20 at FHC, challenging the search warrant and the enforcement of fundamental human rights.

The commission said El-Rufai also filed suit number: FCT/HC/CV/950/2026 on March 3 at the FCT High Court, challenging the remand order and the enforcement of fundamental human rights.

It argued that the deliberate proliferation of overlapping suits seeking identical monetary and injunctive reliefs against the same primary law enforcement agency constituted “a textbook definition of abuse of court process.

It also argued that the suit was designed to irritate the commission, overreach the judicial system and create the perilous risk of conflicting judgments from coordinate courts.”

The DSS, in its preliminary objection filed by Ayodeji Adedipe, SAN, urged the court to strike out the suit for being incompetent.

It also prayed the court to strike out its name from the suit for failure to disclose any reasonable cause of action against the service, among others.

The AGF, also in his counter affidavit argued in court by Mrs Maimuna Lami-Shiru, Director of Civil Litigation and Public Law, submitted that the 4th respondent is only a necessary party in suits that directly involved the Federal Government of Nigeria.

She argued that the depositions in El-Rufai’s affidavit were speculative.

The lawyer argued that an interim forfeiture is not a final forfeiture order and it was only necessary to enable the ICPC carry out its investigations.

She submitted that an application for an interim forfeiture order did not in anyway breach El-Rufai’s rights.

The director also argued that the ICPC, EFCC and DSS are empowered to make an application for forfeiture to a court of competent jurisdiction, in the course of their investigations.

The lawyer, who urged the court to dismiss the suit, said the ex-govenor had similar cases in FCT High Court and FHC, where he sued the 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents. (NAN)