Court Dismisses DSS Bid To Re-Admit Rejected Exhibits Against Dasuki

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, rejected an application by the Department of State Services (DSS) seeking to re-present exhibits previously rejected in the trial of former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd), over alleged unlawful possession of firearms.

Delivering his ruling, Justice Peter Lifu held that the court could not revisit or admit the same exhibits it had earlier declared inadmissible, describing the DSS’s attempt as an invitation to “judicial rascality and pettiness.”

“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,” Justice Lifu said.

“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,” he added.

The exhibits in question, marked as items 18 to 28 on a 2015 search warrant, were recovered from Dasuki’s residence in Abuja during a raid by the DSS.

At the previous hearing on September 25, DSS lead counsel, Oladipupo Okpeseyi, SAN, had urged the court to move its proceedings to the agency’s headquarters to inspect the vehicles allegedly seized from Dasuki’s residence, noting that they had been parked there for a decade.

Okpeseyi argued that the agency now sought to tender the same items after laying a “proper foundation” for their admission, insisting that their earlier rejection was not based on irrelevance but on procedural grounds.

“The rejection was not based on irrelevance to the trial,” he told the court, maintaining that the deficiencies cited in the earlier ruling had now been addressed.

However, Dasuki’s counsel, A. A. Usman opposed the motion, calling it “strange and unknown to law.”

“Once an exhibit has been rejected and marked as such, it stands rejected and cannot be re-admitted by the same court,” Usman argued.
He added that “the only lawful step open to the DSS was to appeal the earlier ruling, not to invite the same judge to sit as an appellate court over his own decision.”

Describing the application as “baseless, ill-conceived, misplaced, and unwarranted,” Usman urged the court to dismiss it, saying it was merely “a ploy to turn back the hands of the clock.”

In his ruling, Justice Lifu upheld the defence’s position, stressing that the rejected exhibits remained inadmissible.

“The exhibits remain rejected,” he declared, reaffirming that the court would not revisit settled issues under any guise.