The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday delivered a decisive ruling, rejecting the Department of State Services’ (DSS) attempt to re-present exhibits the court had earlier thrown out in the ongoing trial of former National Security Adviser, Colonel Sambo Dasuki (retd). The court’s decision marked yet another setback for the DSS in a legal battle that has spanned nearly a decade and drawn national attention due to its implications for justice, due process, and the rule of law in Nigeria.
Justice Peter Lifu, who presided over the matter, ruled that the court would not admit the same exhibits it had already rejected. His ruling came after the DSS, through its lead counsel, Oladipupo Okpeseyi, filed a motion seeking permission to re-present the controversial exhibits. The agency argued that the materials were crucial to its case against Dasuki, who faces charges of alleged unlawful possession of firearms. However, the judge made it clear that the principle of judicial consistency forbids re-admission of evidence that has already been deemed inadmissible.
Justice Lifu emphasized that the court must uphold integrity in its proceedings. He stated firmly that no party, no matter how powerful or influential, could pressure the court into revisiting a decision that had already been conclusively determined. He reminded the courtroom that the law must operate with finality in such matters to preserve the sanctity of judicial decisions.
The controversy originated from the DSS’s claim that vehicles and other items recovered from Dasuki’s residence during a 2015 search were essential pieces of evidence. The agency insisted that those materials would help prove its case that Dasuki unlawfully possessed firearms and other prohibited items while serving as National Security Adviser. The former NSA, however, has maintained his innocence throughout, insisting that the charges are politically motivated and rooted in personal vendetta rather than evidence.
At the previous court session held on September 25, 2025, Okpeseyi made an unusual request: he asked Justice Lifu to relocate the court’s proceedings temporarily to the DSS headquarters in Abuja. He argued that the vehicles seized from Dasuki’s residence had been parked at the DSS facility for nearly ten years and required inspection by the court before they could be admitted as evidence. According to him, this on-site inspection would establish the authenticity and relevance of the materials.
During the hearing, Justice Lifu questioned the DSS counsel to clarify which specific exhibits were in question. Okpeseyi responded that the items were listed as numbers 18 through 28 on the search warrant executed at Dasuki’s Abuja residence in 2015. The DSS lawyer maintained that these items included vehicles, firearms, and other personal effects seized during the operation.
The courtroom atmosphere grew tense when the judge reminded the DSS counsel that these same exhibits had already been marked as rejected in earlier proceedings. Okpeseyi, however, insisted that the DSS retained the right to re-present them. He argued that the earlier rejection stemmed from a procedural issue rather than the irrelevance of the exhibits to the charges. He cited several legal authorities to support his position, claiming that the court should allow him to reintroduce the items now that he had laid what he described as the “proper foundation” for their admissibility.
In his submission, Okpeseyi stated that the initial rejection happened because the prosecution had not provided sufficient groundwork to establish the chain of custody and the link between the exhibits and the alleged crime. He claimed that the deficiency had now been corrected and urged the court to reconsider its position in the interest of justice. He maintained that since the rejection did not stem from irrelevance, the court could rightfully allow the re-presentation.
But defense counsel A.A. Usman, representing Colonel Dasuki, opposed the motion vigorously. Usman described the DSS’s application as “strange, desperate, and unknown to Nigerian law.” He reminded the court that once a piece of evidence had been rejected and marked accordingly, it remained rejected forever unless an appellate court overturned that decision. According to him, the DSS’s attempt to return to the same court with the same exhibits amounted to asking Justice Lifu to review his own judgment — an action that would violate the fundamental principles of judicial process.
Usman noted that on July 10, 2025, Justice Lifu had already issued a detailed ruling declaring those same exhibits irrelevant to the charges against Dasuki. He argued that the court could not now reverse itself under any guise. “What the prosecution is attempting is nothing short of judicial backdoor practice,” he said. “This court cannot sit as an appellate court over its own ruling. The law simply does not permit it.”
The defense counsel urged the court to reject the DSS’s motion in its entirety. He described it as “baseless, ill-conceived, and designed only to confuse the process.” He further argued that the application represented a deliberate effort to waste the court’s time and delay the trial’s conclusion. “This motion seeks to turn back the hands of time,” Usman said. “It is a ploy to re-litigate settled issues and drag this case into unnecessary controversy.”
Justice Lifu agreed with the defense and dismissed the motion in strong terms. He reaffirmed that the exhibits in question remained inadmissible. The judge stated that his July 10 ruling had already settled the issue once and for all.
“I recall that on July 10, 2025, I delivered a considered ruling rejecting these same exhibits for lack of proper foundation and relevance to the charge,” Justice Lifu said. “That ruling still stands, and I remain bound by it. Any attempt to reverse that decision now would amount to judicial rascality, which this court will not entertain.”
He further warned that granting the prosecution’s request would make the judiciary appear inconsistent and politically influenced. “This court will not indulge any invitation to act in a manner that brings the justice system into disrepute,” the judge declared. “Common sense alone rejects this motion. The court dismisses the application and maintains its earlier position.”
Observers present in court noted the significance of Justice Lifu’s tone. Legal experts present interpreted the ruling as a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s independence, particularly in high-profile cases involving political figures. The case against Dasuki has long been one of Nigeria’s most controversial prosecutions, frequently seen as a test of how far the state can go in pursuing former government officials without crossing into abuse of power.
The legal saga dates back to late 2015, when security operatives arrested Colonel Dasuki and charged him with unlawful possession of firearms and alleged diversion of funds intended for the procurement of military equipment. The allegations, part of a broader corruption investigation, led to several years of litigation and repeated court appearances.
Dasuki’s legal troubles began shortly after his tenure as National Security Adviser under former President Goodluck Jonathan ended. During that period, the DSS raided his Abuja residence, claiming to have recovered arms, ammunition, and vehicles linked to the allegations. The exhibits at the center of the current dispute originated from that search. However, over the years, courts have questioned the legality of both the search and the seizure, leading to multiple rulings that weakened the prosecution’s position.
This latest ruling once again highlights the complexity of the Dasuki case. Beyond its legal dimensions, it symbolizes the ongoing struggle in Nigeria’s justice system to balance the pursuit of accountability with respect for the rule of law.
Legal analysts argue that the ruling underscores a vital principle: once a court makes a ruling on the admissibility of evidence, only a higher court has the authority to overturn it. This safeguard prevents abuse of process and ensures fairness to all parties. Any deviation from this rule could erode public trust in the judiciary and set dangerous precedents for future cases.
For Dasuki, the decision represents another small victory in a long and exhausting legal journey. His defense team welcomed the ruling as a triumph of due process and judicial independence. “The law has spoken clearly today,” one of his aides commented after the hearing. “This ruling reinforces that justice in Nigeria still operates under principles, not pressure.”
Meanwhile, some political commentators believe that the DSS’s persistence in pursuing the same line of argument reflects deeper institutional challenges. They argue that rather than strengthening its case with new and credible evidence, the agency continues to rely on previously discredited materials, which weakens public confidence in its motives. Others see the DSS’s motion as part of a broader pattern of prosecutorial overreach in politically sensitive cases.
The courtroom drama surrounding the Dasuki trial also continues to draw attention to broader issues in Nigeria’s justice system — from prolonged pre-trial detentions to the misuse of security institutions in civil matters.
As the proceedings move forward, legal experts say the DSS faces an uphill battle. With the exhibits once again rejected and the judge firmly standing by his earlier decision, the prosecution will need to present fresh, legally admissible evidence if it hopes to sustain its case. Any further attempts to reintroduce the same materials could expose the agency to judicial sanctions for abuse of process.
For now, the Federal High Court’s ruling reinforces a critical message about the rule of law in Nigeria: courts must not become tools of convenience for any party. Justice, as Justice Lifu’s words made clear, must remain grounded in fairness, consistency, and respect for established procedure. The Dasuki case, though controversial, continues to serve as a reminder that in a democracy, even powerful institutions like the DSS must operate within the limits of the law.
As proceedings resume in the coming weeks, attention will remain fixed on how both sides navigate the remaining stages of the trial. For the judiciary, this moment stands as another test of its resolve to uphold integrity. For the DSS, it serves as a warning that persistence cannot substitute for legality.