By Iroyin Yoruba Television
A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit filed by former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai seeking to prevent the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and other government agencies from freezing his bank accounts or taking steps to seize his properties.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik on Thursday, October 8, 2026, came after the court considered objections raised by the respondents, who argued that El-Rufai had instituted multiple suits arising from the same ongoing investigation.
The court held that the case amounted to an abuse of judicial process and described the application as speculative and lacking merit. The ruling was reported by multiple Nigerian news organisations on October 8 and 9, making it a qualifying fresh development for the anti-corruption category.
The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/368/2026, was filed by El-Rufai through his counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria Oluwole Iyamu. The former governor had asked the court to restrain the authorities from freezing, attaching, seizing or forfeiting his assets while the wider investigation remained ongoing.
At the centre of his application was his argument that the severance benefits he received after completing his two-term tenure as Kaduna governor between 2015 and 2023 were legitimate funds and should not reasonably be treated as proceeds of unlawful activity.
He also argued that properties acquired with the severance benefits were lawfully obtained and belonged to him.
The former governor further sought orders preventing the authorities from taking steps toward interim or final forfeiture of his properties and bank accounts without first establishing what he described as reasonable suspicion supported by credible evidence.
The respondents opposed the application.
The ICPC argued that El-Rufai's case was incompetent and constituted an abuse of court process because he had already instituted other cases connected to the same investigation before different courts.
According to the commission, the former governor's arrest, the search of his residence and the anticipated tracing and freezing of his assets all arose from one continuing investigation.
The ICPC told the court that rather than consolidating his complaints, El-Rufai had filed separate suits dealing with different aspects of the same dispute.
The commission identified an earlier suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, filed at the Federal High Court on February 20. That case challenged the search warrant used during the investigation and also sought enforcement of El-Rufai's fundamental rights.
The ICPC also referred to another suit filed at the Federal Capital Territory High Court, marked FCT/HC/CV/950/2026, in which El-Rufai challenged a remand order and sought enforcement of his fundamental rights.
The commission argued that allowing overlapping suits to proceed simultaneously could create the possibility of conflicting decisions from courts of coordinate jurisdiction.
Justice Abdulmalik agreed with the respondents that the latest case amounted to an abuse of court process.
The judge also held that a court could not be used to prevent law-enforcement agencies from carrying out statutory responsibilities within the scope of their legal powers.
The ruling also resulted in the EFCC, Department of State Services and Attorney-General of the Federation being struck out as respondents after the court found that the suit did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against them.
EL-RUFAI’S CLAIMS OVER HIS ASSETS
El-Rufai had approached the court seeking several orders intended to protect his financial accounts and properties from possible enforcement action.
Among other reliefs, he asked the court to restrain the respondents from applying for or obtaining interim or final forfeiture orders against his assets.
He also sought protection against the freezing or attachment of his bank accounts.
The former governor argued that the severance benefits he received after leaving office could not reasonably be regarded as proceeds of criminal activity.
He maintained that properties purchased with those funds were legally acquired.
The application also sought a declaration that any attempt to freeze or seize his assets without sufficient evidence would violate his constitutional rights.
El-Rufai further requested N1 billion in general, exemplary and aggravated damages, citing what he described as anticipated violations of his fundamental rights, psychological distress, anxiety and reputational damage.
He also sought N100 million in costs, including legal fees and other expenses associated with the proceedings.
The court, however, did not accept his argument that the application should prevent the agencies from pursuing their investigation.
ICPC DEFENDS ITS INVESTIGATION
The ICPC maintained that the investigation involving the former governor was still ongoing and that its actions were connected to its statutory responsibilities.
The commission argued that the process of tracing and potentially freezing assets during an investigation was not, by itself, equivalent to a final declaration that the assets were proceeds of crime.
The Attorney-General of the Federation also opposed El-Rufai's claims.
Representing the AGF, Director of Civil Litigation and Public Law Maimuna Lami-Shiru argued that an interim forfeiture application should not be confused with a final forfeiture order.
She told the court that an interim order could be sought to preserve assets while an investigation continued.
The AGF's representative further argued that the ICPC, EFCC and DSS were empowered by law to approach courts of competent jurisdiction for appropriate forfeiture orders in the course of investigations.
The government therefore urged the court to dismiss El-Rufai's application.
The DSS also asked the court to strike out its name from the case, arguing that the suit did not establish a reasonable cause of action against the agency.
MULTIPLE LEGAL BATTLES
The latest ruling forms part of a wider series of legal disputes involving El-Rufai and government agencies.
The former governor has challenged several aspects of the investigation, including the search of his Abuja residence and his detention.
One of the separate cases involves a N1 billion fundamental-rights claim against the ICPC, Inspector-General of Police and Attorney-General of the Federation.
That matter concerns the search of El-Rufai's Abuja residence and the former governor's challenge to the legality of the operation.
The Federal High Court previously fixed October 27, 2026, for definite hearing of that case after the Attorney-General's office filed a counter-affidavit opposing El-Rufai's claims.
The former governor has also been involved in a separate criminal proceeding relating to allegations concerning the unlawful interception of telephone communications. In that case, the Federal High Court has fixed October 26 for a ruling on his no-case submission. El-Rufai has pleaded not guilty to the allegations.
The various proceedings are separate from the latest asset-freezing case, although they are connected to the broader legal confrontation between El-Rufai and government authorities.
WHAT THE RULING MEANS
The latest decision does not amount to a final judicial declaration that El-Rufai's assets are proceeds of corruption or other criminal activity.
Rather, the ruling dealt with whether the particular suit seeking to restrain the agencies from taking steps concerning his assets could proceed in the form in which it was filed.
The court's decision allows the relevant law-enforcement agencies to continue performing their statutory duties, subject to applicable legal procedures and any future orders issued by courts with jurisdiction.
The ruling also reinforces the importance of avoiding multiple overlapping cases involving the same dispute.
The ICPC had argued that the former governor's separate lawsuits could create conflicting decisions because they were filed across different court systems while addressing issues arising from the same investigation.
The judge accepted that argument in dismissing the latest suit.
For anti-corruption enforcement, the decision is significant because it leaves the agencies with room to pursue lawful investigative measures while the various legal challenges continue through the courts.
For El-Rufai, the ruling represents a setback in his attempt to obtain an order specifically preventing the authorities from freezing or seizing his assets.
However, his other legal challenges remain before the courts.
INVESTIGATION AND DUE PROCESS
The case also highlights the balance between anti-corruption investigations and the constitutional rights of individuals facing investigation.
Anti-corruption agencies have powers to investigate allegations, trace suspected proceeds of crime and seek judicial orders where the law permits.
At the same time, suspects and defendants retain legal rights, including the right to challenge investigative actions and seek judicial review.
The latest ruling did not remove El-Rufai's ability to pursue other legal remedies available to him in the separate proceedings.
Instead, Justice Abdulmalik's decision focused on the structure and circumstances of the particular case before her.
The ruling therefore does not determine the final outcome of the wider investigation.
Any eventual criminal liability or final forfeiture of property would have to be determined through the appropriate legal processes.
The case is expected to remain under public scrutiny as the other proceedings involving the former governor continue.
The latest judgment nevertheless provides an important development in the ongoing anti-corruption proceedings because it removes one of the legal barriers El-Rufai had sought to place against possible asset-freezing or forfeiture steps by government agencies.
As the ICPC, EFCC and other authorities continue their respective responsibilities, further court decisions could determine how the broader investigation and related cases progress.
For now, the Federal High Court's decision means El-Rufai has not secured the injunction he sought to prevent the agencies from taking steps concerning his assets, while his other legal challenges remain pending before the courts.