On Tuesday, the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed a motion filed by the Department of State Services (DSS) to reintroduce court-grants-sen-natasha-bail-on-self-recognition/” title=”… grants Sen. Natasha bail on self-recognition”>evidence previously excluded in the trial of retired National Security Adviser Col. Sambo Dasuki, who faces charges of illegal firearm possession.
Presiding over the case, Justice Peter Lifu ruled that the court could not reconsider or accept the same exhibits it had earlier ruled inadmissible. He characterized the DSS’s request as an attempt to engage in “judicial misconduct and triviality.”
“I recall delivering a detailed judgment on July 10, 2025, where I rejected these exhibits due to insufficient foundation and their irrelevance to the charges. That decision remains binding,” Justice Lifu stated.
“Reversing this ruling would amount to judicial impropriety and pettiness. It defies common sense to entertain such a request. Accordingly, this court refuses the application, which is hereby dismissed,” he added.
The contested exhibits, labeled items 18 through 28 on a 2015 search warrant, were seized from Dasuki’s Abuja residence during a DSS operation.
During the hearing on September 25, the lead counsel for the DSS, Oladipupo Okpeseyi, SAN, requested that the court relocate proceedings to the agency’s headquarters to examine vehicles allegedly confiscated from Dasuki’s home, which had reportedly been stored there for ten years.
Okpeseyi contended that the DSS was now prepared to present the same evidence after establishing a “proper foundation” for its admission, emphasizing that the initial rejection was procedural rather than substantive.
“The exhibits were not excluded due to irrelevance to the case,” he argued, asserting that the earlier procedural shortcomings had been rectified.
Conversely, Dasuki’s lawyer, A. A. Usman, opposed the motion, describing it as “unfamiliar and legally untenable.”
“Once evidence is rejected and marked inadmissible, it cannot be reintroduced before the same court,” Usman maintained.
He further explained that “the appropriate recourse for the DSS was to appeal the prior decision, not to request the trial judge to overturn his own ruling.”
Labeling the application as “frivolous, ill-founded, misplaced, and unnecessary,” Usman urged the court to dismiss it, calling it a mere attempt to “undo a final decision.”
Justice Lifu sided with the defense, affirming that the exhibits remain inadmissible.
“The exhibits continue to be rejected,” he declared, emphasizing that the court will not reopen issues that have already been conclusively decided under any circumstances.
