The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed an application by the Department of State Services (DSS) seeking to re-present exhibits earlier rejected in the ongoing trial of former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd), who is facing charges of alleged unlawful possession of firearms.
In a ruling delivered on Tuesday, Justice Peter Lifu held that the court could not admit the same exhibits it had previously declared inadmissible, describing the DSS’s request as an abuse of judicial process.
At the previous hearing on September 25, DSS lead counsel, Oladipupo Okpeseyi (SAN), urged the court to relocate its proceedings to the DSS headquarters in Abuja to inspect vehicles allegedly recovered from Dasuki’s residence during a 2015 search operation.
According to him, the vehicles—parked at the DSS facility for nearly a decade—should be examined and admitted as evidence.
When Justice Lifu sought clarification, Okpeseyi explained that the items in question were those numbered 18 to 28 on the original search warrant executed at Dasuki’s Abuja home. The court, however, reminded him that the same exhibits had already been rejected and marked accordingly.
Okpeseyi argued that the prosecution was entitled to re-present the items since the earlier rejection was based on the failure to lay a proper foundation, not on their relevance to the case. He maintained that the necessary deficiencies had now been corrected, urging the court to reconsider and admit the exhibits.
Opposing the motion, Dasuki’s counsel, A. A. Usman, described the application as “strange, baseless, and unknown to law.” He contended that once an exhibit has been rejected and marked as such, it remains inadmissible before the same court. Usman insisted that Justice Lifu had, in a ruling delivered on July 10, 2025, already found the exhibits both irrelevant and improperly introduced, leaving the DSS with only one lawful option—appeal the decision.
He accused the prosecution of attempting to make the judge “sit on appeal over his own ruling,” describing the motion as “a desperate ploy to turn back the hands of the clock.”
In a strongly worded decision, Justice Lifu reaffirmed that the exhibits “remain rejected,” emphasizing that any move to admit them “through the back door” would amount to “judicial rascality and pettiness.”
“I recall that on July 10, 2025, I delivered a considered ruling rejecting these same exhibits for lack of proper foundation and relevance. That ruling still stands, and I am bound by it,” the judge stated.
“Any attempt to reverse that decision would be tantamount to judicial rascality. Even common sense does not support such a request. This court therefore rejects the invitation and hereby dismisses the motion,” he ruled.
About the Author
