The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday rejected a fresh application by the Department of State Services (DSS) seeking to re-present exhibits previously dismissed in the ongoing trial of former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd), over alleged unlawful possession of firearms.
Justice Peter Lifu, ruling on the motion filed by the DSS’s lead counsel, Oladipupo Okpeseyi, held that the court could not admit the same exhibits it had already ruled out.
At the previous sitting on September 25, Okpeseyi had urged the court to relocate proceedings to the DSS headquarters in Abuja for an inspection of vehicles allegedly recovered from Dasuki’s residence during a 2015 search.
He explained that the vehicles had been kept at the DSS facility for ten years and should be inspected to support their admission as evidence.
However, upon clarification, Okpeseyi confirmed that the items in question were “numbered 18 to 28 on the search warrant, all recovered from Dasuki’s Abuja home.”
When reminded that the court had earlier rejected those same items, Okpeseyi maintained that he was entitled to re-present them for admission, insisting that the earlier rejection occurred only because “a proper foundation for their admission had not been laid at the time.”
He further argued that the issue had now been addressed and that “the rejection was not based on irrelevance to the trial.”
In opposition, Dasuki’s counsel, A. A. Usman, faulted the request, describing it as “strange and unknown to law.”
He argued that “once an exhibit has been rejected and marked as such, it stands rejected and cannot be re-admitted by the same court.”
Usman reminded the court that Justice Lifu had already ruled on July 10 that the exhibits were irrelevant to the charge, stressing that the prosecution could not revisit the matter “through the back door.”
He maintained that the only lawful remedy for the DSS was to file an appeal rather than “inviting the same judge to sit as an appellate court over his own decision.”
Urging the court to dismiss the motion, Usman described it as “baseless, ill-conceived, misplaced, unwarranted, and a ploy to turn back the hands of the clock.”
Delivering his ruling, Justice Lifu reaffirmed that the exhibits “remain rejected,” noting that they were inadmissible for lack of relevance and proper foundation.
He added that granting the prosecution’s request would amount to “judicial rascality and pettiness,” which the court would not entertain.
“I recall that on July 10, 2025, I delivered a considered ruling rejecting the same sets of exhibits due to improper foundation for their admission and lack of relevance to the charge. That ruling still subsists, and I am bound by it,” the judge stated.
“Any attempt to go against that same ruling will amount to judicial rascality and pettiness. Common sense does not even support granting this kind of request. This court rejects the invitation, and the request is hereby dismissed,” Justice Lifu ruled.
Advertisement
