By Yemi Oyeyemi, Abuja
Justice Peter Odo Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has dismissed a fresh request by the Department of State Services (DSS) to re-present a set of exhibits previously rejected in the ongoing trial of former National Security Adviser (NSA), Colonel Sambo Dasuki (rtd), over alleged unlawful possession of firearms.
Delivering his ruling on Tuesday, Justice Lifu described the DSS application—led by senior counsel Oladipupo Okpeseyi, SAN—as an attempt to reintroduce evidence already deemed inadmissible due to lack of relevance and improper foundation. The judge firmly stated that the exhibits had already been rejected and marked accordingly, and the court could not reverse its own decision in the absence of an appeal.
“Admitting them through the back door would amount to judicial rascality and pettiness, which this court cannot engage in,” Justice Lifu declared.
The court emphasized that allowing such a move would put it in the untenable position of acting as an appellate court over its own ruling. “I recall that on July 10, 2025, I delivered a considered ruling rejecting these same exhibits for lacking proper foundation and relevance. That ruling still stands, and I am bound by it,” he said.
Okpeseyi had earlier urged the court, during the September 25 proceedings, to relocate to the DSS Headquarters in Abuja to inspect vehicles allegedly recovered from Dasuki’s residence during a 2015 search. According to him, the vehicles—items 18 to 28 listed on the original search warrant—have been in DSS custody for a decade and should now be admitted as exhibits.
When the judge asked about the nature of the exhibits, Okpeseyi argued that although they had previously been rejected, he had now laid the necessary foundation for their admissibility and insisted they were not dismissed due to irrelevance.
He cited legal authorities to support his position and maintained that the exhibits were initially rejected only on technical grounds.
However, Dasuki’s counsel, Mr. A. A. Usman, strongly opposed the application, describing it as legally unfounded and procedurally irregular. He argued that once an exhibit has been rejected and marked as such, it cannot be brought back before the same court.
“Justice Lifu has already ruled that the exhibits lacked relevance to the charge. The only lawful course available to the DSS is to appeal the decision, not to ask the same judge to revisit and overturn his own ruling,” Usman contended.
He urged the court to dismiss the application, calling it “baseless, ill-conceived, and an unwarranted attempt to turn back the hands of justice.”
Ultimately, Justice Lifu agreed with the defence and dismissed the DSS request, affirming that the earlier ruling on the inadmissibility of the exhibits remains valid and binding.
