The Federal High Court in Abuja concluded proceedings on Tuesday by rejecting the Department of State Services’ request to introduce previously denied materials in the prosecution of retired Col. Sambo Dasuki regarding alleged unauthorized weapon possession.
Justice Peter Lifu dismissed the motion submitted by DSS counsel Oladipupo Okpeseyi, determining that materials formerly deemed inadmissible could not be reconsidered by the same tribunal.
READ ALSO: BREAKING: US court dashes Atiku’s hope! *Shifts hearing on Chicago varsity case to December
During the prior session on September 25, Okpeseyi had sought judicial authorization to conduct an examination of automobiles supposedly confiscated from Dasuki’s property during a 2015 enforcement action. He reasoned that these vehicles, stored at DSS headquarters for a decade, necessitated direct observation to permit their acceptance as courtroom evidence.
Upon inquiry from Justice Lifu regarding the nature of these materials, Okpeseyi clarified they corresponded to entries 18 through 28 documented in the search authorization, all originating from Dasuki’s residential premises.
When the judge referenced the court’s prior rejection determination, Okpeseyi asserted authority to resubmit them for reconsideration. Drawing on legal precedent, he contended that the initial rejection occurred solely because “a proper foundation for their admission had not been laid at the time” and that remedial steps had subsequently occurred.
Dasuki’s legal representative, A. A. Usman, contested this approach, characterizing it as “strange and unknown to law.” Usman posited that “once an exhibit has been rejected and marked as such, it stands rejected and cannot be re-admitted by the same court,” emphasizing that attempting to revisit prior determinations “through the back door” violated established judicial protocol.
Usman referenced Justice Lifu’s July 10 judgment, which established these materials as irrelevant and therefore improper for admission, suggesting that appeal mechanisms represented the legitimately available recourse rather than “inviting the same judge to sit as an appellate court over his own decision.”
In his determination, Justice Lifu reaffirmed that the contested materials “remain rejected,” having been determined as insufficiently relevant and inadequately substantiated.
The judge stated: “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.”
He further declared: “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.”