The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday dismissed an application by the Department of State Services (DSS) seeking to re-present exhibits earlier rejected in the trial of former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd), over alleged unlawful possession of firearms.
Justice Peter Lifu, in a ruling on the DSS’s motion filed by its lead counsel, Oladipupo Okpeseyi, held that the court could not admit the same exhibits it had previously rejected.
At the last hearing on September 25, Okpeseyi had asked the court to move its proceedings to the DSS headquarters in Abuja to inspect vehicles allegedly recovered from Dasuki’s residence during the 2015 execution of a search warrant.
He explained that the vehicles had been parked at the DSS headquarters for ten years and should be inspected by the court to facilitate their admission as exhibits against the defendant.
However, when Justice Lifu sought clarification on the exhibits, Okpeseyi said they were items numbered 18 to 28 on the search warrant, all recovered from Dasuki’s Abuja home.
When reminded that the same items had been rejected and marked accordingly, the DSS counsel argued that he had the right to re-present them for admission.
Relying on various authorities, Okpeseyi contended that the exhibits were earlier rejected only because “a proper foundation for their admission had not been laid at the time.”
He maintained that the deficiency had now been corrected and that “the rejection was not based on irrelevance to the trial,” urging the court to grant his request.
But Dasuki’s counsel, A. A. Usman, opposed the application, describing it as “strange and unknown to law.”
Usman argued that “once an exhibit has been rejected and marked as such, it stands rejected and cannot be re-admitted by the same court.”
He insisted that Justice Lifu could not revisit the issue “through the back door,” noting that in a July 10 ruling, the judge had already declared the exhibits irrelevant to the charge and, therefore, inadmissible.
He submitted that the only lawful step open to the DSS was to appeal the earlier ruling, 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.”
In his ruling, Justice Lifu reaffirmed that the exhibits “remain rejected,” having been found inadmissible for lack of relevance and proper foundation.
He held that admitting them “through the back door,” as the prosecution requested, would amount to “judicial rascality and pettiness,” which the court would not condone.
“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.
