The Federal High Court, Abuja, on Tuesday dismissed an application by the Department of State Services (DSS) seeking to re-present exhibits earlier rejected in the ongoing 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 previously declared inadmissible, describing the DSS’s move 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 stated.
“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,” he added.

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

At a previous sitting on September 25, DSS lead counsel, Oladipupo Okpeseyi (SAN), had urged the court to move its proceedings to the agency’s headquarters to inspect vehicles allegedly seized from Dasuki’s home, noting that the items had been in custody for about a decade.

Okpeseyi argued that the DSS had now laid a proper foundation for the admission of the exhibits, stressing that their earlier rejection was procedural rather than substantive.

However, Dasuki’s counsel, A. A. Usman, opposed the application, describing it as “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 said, adding that the only lawful step available to the DSS was to appeal the earlier ruling.

Justice Lifu agreed with the defence, reaffirming that the rejected exhibits remained inadmissible.

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