ICPC and AGF have urged the court to dismiss El-Rufai’s N1bn rights suit, arguing that security protocols justified restrictions at the detention facility.
The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) have urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a N1 billion fundamental rights suit filed by former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, over alleged denial of access to his family members while in custody.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1852/2026, was filed by El-Rufai through his lawyer, Ubong Akpan, on August 13, 2026. The former governor sued the ICPC, its Chairman, Musa Aliyu, SAN, and the AGF as first to third respondents respectively.
El-Rufai alleged that his wife, Aichatou Asabe, and his son, Abba El-Rufai, were prevented from visiting him while he was detained by the commission.
He is seeking nine reliefs, including a declaration that his fundamental rights guaranteed under Part IV of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, remain enforceable despite his detention.
In a joint counter-affidavit, the ICPC and its chairman rejected several of El-Rufai’s allegations, describing them as false.
The counter-affidavit was deposed to by John Uche, a Chief Anti-Corruption Assistant in the commission’s Internal Security Support Unit.
Uche stated that El-Rufai was in the lawful custody of the ICPC pursuant to an order of the Federal High Court in Kaduna in charge number FHC/KD/73C/2025.
He said the commission complied with a court order permitting El-Rufai access to his personal physician, facilitating a medical visit on July 7, during which the former governor was accompanied by ICPC officers and his wife, Asabe.
According to Uche, the commission subsequently received reports that the medical visit had allegedly turned into a political meeting, which he said exposed vulnerabilities in the existing access-control arrangements.
He said the ICPC consequently introduced temporary measures restricting non-essential access to El-Rufai while the alleged security vulnerabilities were reviewed and addressed.
Uche also gave an account of an incident involving El-Rufai’s son, Abba, on July 7, alleging that he attempted to enter the commission’s premises to see his father.
He said security personnel intervened after a confrontation at the facility, adding that the incident was captured by the commission’s Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras.
The ICPC official further alleged that an earlier security breach had occurred on July 4, when Asabe was allegedly allowed into the commission’s premises after official visiting hours with the alleged assistance of some officers.
According to him, the officers involved were subjected to disciplinary proceedings, while the commission temporarily suspended Asabe’s visiting access pending the completion of its security review.
The ICPC maintained that the restriction was a temporary security measure and not an attempt to unlawfully interfere with El-Rufai’s family relationships.
Uche also stated that other members of El-Rufai’s family had subsequently been granted access to him and were allowed to bring meals, medication and other necessary supplies.
The commission attached its visitors’ log as an exhibit to support its position and urged the court to dismiss the claims against the ICPC and its chairman.
In a separate counter-affidavit filed on September 11, the Attorney-General of the Federation also urged the court to dismiss the suit.
The affidavit was deposed to by Oni Michael, an Administrative Officer in the Civil Litigation and Public Law Department of the Federal Ministry of Justice.
Michael argued that the AGF was not responsible for arresting or detaining El-Rufai and did not operate or control the ICPC detention facility.
He maintained that the AGF was not involved in the events of July 7 and did not deny El-Rufai’s family members access to him.
According to the AGF’s counter-affidavit, the earlier court order relied upon by El-Rufai directed the ICPC and its chairman to allow him access to his counsel and personal physician but did not specifically provide for access by Asabe or other persons.
The AGF further argued that the ICPC was empowered to establish security protocols within its facilities to prevent breaches.
The Federal Government maintained that the security measures were necessary for the protection and control of the ICPC detention facility, particularly following the alleged breaches.
The court is expected to determine the issues raised by the parties in the fundamental rights action.
Visit GMTNewsng for more news stories.
