The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled December 8, 2026, to deliver judgment in a N10 billion fundamental rights lawsuit brought by former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), its chairman and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The legal battle centres on allegations that the anti-corruption agency unlawfully restricted the former governor’s access to his wife, Aichatou Asabe, and son, Abba El-Rufai, while he was in custody.
Justice Chigozie Onah announced the judgment date on Wednesday, November 4, after lawyers representing both sides concluded their arguments and presented their positions on CCTV recordings tendered during proceedings.
CCTV footage takes centre stage in El-Rufai’s N10bn lawsuit
A major development during the hearing was the examination of security camera footage from the ICPC’s premises.
The court directed the parties to present relevant portions of the recordings to support their competing accounts of what happened when El-Rufai’s relatives attempted to visit him.
The footage included incidents recorded on July 4 and July 7, 2026, involving his wife and son.
One recording reportedly showed Asabe arriving at the commission’s office with food for her husband at approximately 2:37 p.m. on July 7, accompanied by an officer.
The ICPC maintained that the recordings supported its decision to impose restrictions on access to the former governor.
El-Rufai’s legal team, however, challenged that interpretation, arguing that the footage did not establish any wrongdoing serious enough to justify preventing family visits.
El-Rufai’s lawyer challenges restrictions on family visits
Representing the former governor, Ubong Akpan told the court that the restrictions amounted to an unjustified interference with his client’s fundamental rights.
He argued that the ICPC had failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating why El-Rufai’s wife and son should have been prevented from seeing him.
According to the lawyer, any limitation placed on a detainee’s access to family members must have a legitimate and demonstrable justification.
Akpan also referred to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, commonly called the Nelson Mandela Rules, in supporting his argument about humane treatment and family contact.
Justice Onah questioned whether those international standards were directly enforceable under Nigerian law.
In response, Akpan described them as internationally recognised guidelines for the treatment of people in detention.
The lawyer urged the court to grant the reliefs sought by his client, maintaining that the restrictions were inconsistent with the protection of fundamental rights.
ICPC defends security measures, alleges protocol violations
The ICPC rejected the allegations and insisted that its actions were necessary to protect security within its detention facility.
Its counsel, Yetunde Mosunmola, argued that although detainees may receive visitors, such access remains subject to established security procedures.
She maintained that the commission had legitimate grounds for restricting Asabe’s visits following alleged breaches of its internal protocols.
According to the agency’s account, Asabe entered the commission’s premises on July 4 after official visiting hours, allegedly with assistance from some personnel.
The ICPC said the incident prompted disciplinary measures against officers implicated in the alleged breach, including the dismissal of one officer.
Mosunmola further argued that the restrictions were specifically directed at Asabe because of the security concerns identified by the commission.
She said other members of El-Rufai’s family were not subjected to the same restrictions.
The agency therefore asked the court to dismiss the N10 billion lawsuit, maintaining that it had acted within its legal authority.
Attorney-General backs ICPC’s position
The Attorney-General of the Federation, represented by Maimuna Lami-Shiru, Director of Civil Litigation and Public Law, also opposed El-Rufai’s application.
Lami-Shiru argued that the ICPC and its chairman had acted lawfully in enforcing security arrangements governing visits to individuals in custody.
She relied on the government’s filed affidavit and written submissions in asking the court to reject the former governor’s claims.
The court subsequently reserved judgment until December 8.
How the dispute over El-Rufai’s detention began
The immediate dispute arose from restrictions imposed on family access during El-Rufai’s detention by the ICPC.
According to the commission’s court filings, the former governor was being held pursuant to an order of the Federal High Court in Kaduna in connection with charge number FHC/KD/73C/2025.
The commission stated that on July 7, arrangements were made for El-Rufai to receive medical attention from his personal physician in accordance with a court order.
However, the ICPC alleged that the medical visit was subsequently used for political discussions, raising concerns about the effectiveness of its security arrangements.
The agency said those concerns led to a review of visitor access and the introduction of temporary restrictions.
It also alleged that Abba El-Rufai visited the commission’s office on July 7 seeking access to his father but was refused entry.
The commission’s account of that incident, together with the alleged unauthorised visit by Asabe on July 4, formed part of its defence.
These allegations remain contested. The court has not yet delivered its decision on whether the restrictions violated El-Rufai’s constitutional rights.
Why El-Rufai is demanding N10 billion
El-Rufai instituted the fundamental rights enforcement action on August 13, 2026, under suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1852/2026.
He named the ICPC, its chairman Musa Aliyu, SAN, and the Attorney-General of the Federation as respondents.
Through the lawsuit, the former governor is seeking N10 billion in damages alongside other reliefs relating to the alleged denial of family access.
His application invokes constitutional protections under Chapter IV of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, as amended.
The central question before the court is whether the commission’s security restrictions were lawful and proportionate or whether they unlawfully interfered with the rights of a person in custody.
The case also raises wider questions about the extent to which detention authorities can regulate family visits while remaining accountable to constitutional safeguards.
What happens next?
The Federal High Court is expected to rule on December 8, 2026, after considering the affidavits, legal submissions and CCTV evidence presented by the parties.
The judgment will determine whether El-Rufai has established a violation of his fundamental rights and whether any of the remedies he requested should be granted.
Until then, the N10 billion claim remains unresolved, and the allegations made by both sides should not be treated as judicial findings.
