🌿 Ruzu Non-Alcoholic Herbal Bitters
Ruzu Non-Alcoholic Herbal Bitters is a natural health supplement specially formulated to:
- ✅ Promote general wellness
- ✅ Detoxify the body
- ✅ Support the treatment of various ailments
Made from a powerful blend of 100% organic and medicinal herbs, Ruzu is completely alcohol-free, making it ideal for:
- 👪 All age groups
- 🌱 Health-conscious individuals
- 🌿 Anyone seeking non-alcoholic herbal remedies
Whether you're looking to boost your vitality, cleanse your system, or support healing the natural way, Ruzu Bitters offers a trusted herbal solution.
Because of the claimed illegal entry and search of his Abuja home, Nasir El-Rufai, a former governor of Kaduna State, has sued the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offenses Commission for N1 billion in fundamental rights enforcement.
El-Rufai is contesting the legality of a search warrant granted on February 4 by a Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrates’ Court in the petition known as FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, which was filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja on February 20 by his attorney, Oluwole Iyamu (SAN).
He is requesting that the warrant that permitted the search and seizure at his home be ruled void by the court.
The former governor claimed in the application that the warrant was “null and void for lack of particularity, material drafting errors, ambiguity in execution parameters, overbreadth, and absence of probable cause, thereby constituting an unlawful and unreasonable search in violation of Section 37 of the Constitution.”
The Inspector-General of Police, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Chief Magistrate of the FCT Magistrates’ Court, Abuja Magisterial District, and the ICPC were mentioned by El-Rufai as the first, second, and fourth respondents, respectively.
Among the seven reliefs he is requesting is a declaration that his fundamental rights were violated by the alleged invasion and search of his home at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on February 19 at approximately 2:00 p.m. by ICPC and Nigeria Police Force agents acting under the contested warrant.
He requested that the court rule that the search “amounts to a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights to privacy, personal liberty, fair hearing, and dignity of the human person under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.”
He further requested the court to rule that “any evidence obtained pursuant to the aforementioned unlawful search and invalid warrant is inadmissible in any proceedings against the applicant, as it was procured in breach of constitutional safeguards.”
In addition to other petitions, El-Rufai is requesting an injunction prohibiting the respondents from using or presenting any objects found during the search in any examination or legal action against him.
Additionally, he requested “an order directing the first and third respondents (ICPC and I-G) to forthwith return all items seized from the applicant’s premises via unlawful search, along with a detailed inventory thereof.”
He is also requesting “the sum of N1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion Naira) as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against the respondents jointly and severally for the violations of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including trespass, unlawful seizure, and the related psychological trauma, humiliation, distress, infringement of privacy, and reputational harm.”
The N1 billion claim was divided by the former governor into N300 million in compensatory damages for emotional distress and psychological trauma, N400 million in exemplary damages to prevent future misconduct by law enforcement, and N300 million in aggravated damages for what he said were the oppressive and malicious nature of the respondents’ actions.
In order to compensate legal bills and related costs, he also requested N100 million as the suit’s filing fee.
Iyamu argued that the warrant was essentially flawed, pointing to major typographical errors, vague execution words, vague instructions, vague descriptions of the objects to be taken, and a lack of verifiable probable cause.
Sections 143 to 148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015; Section 36 of the ICPC Act, 2000; and constitutional safeguards against arbitrary interference, he contended, were violated by the claimed flaws.
“An application for a search warrant must be supported by information in writing and on oath, setting forth reasonable grounds for suspicion,” he claimed, citing Section 143 of the ACJA as being lacking in this instance.
In order to preclude generic warrants, he said, Section 144 requires precise descriptions of the location to be searched and the objects sought; nevertheless, the warrant in question only made ambiguous reference to “the thing aforesaid.”
“The warrant must be in the prescribed form, free from defects that could mislead,” he added, “but the document is riddled with errors in the address, date, and district designation.”
“While Section 147 permits instructions to designated individuals, the warrant’s indiscriminate reference to “all cops” is excessively wide and unaccountable.
“Although execution is permitted at reasonable times under Section 148, the contradictory language undermines procedural clarity by creating ambiguity.”
Iyamu claimed that the warrant’s execution on February 19 violated his client’s constitutional rights and led to an illegal entry into his property.
Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 481 and C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137 are two decided instances he used to bolster his argument that evidence gathered improperly is inadmissible.
Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, testified in support of the application that officials from the Nigeria Police Force and the ICPC raided the house on February 19 using what he claimed was a faulty warrant that was issued on or around February 4.
He claimed that the officers did not follow the required procedures before performing the search and that the “search warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for.”
Officers allegedly confiscated electronic devices and personal documents during the raid, resulting in “undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress,” Shaba added.
The application was submitted in good faith to uphold the applicant’s constitutional rights, he continued, and none of the confiscated goods had been restored.
