Court declines to admit exhibits in Dasuki’s trial
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday refused to admit a set of exhibits that the Federal Government (FG) sought to tender as evidence against former National Security Adviser (NSA) Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd). The court’s decision marks a significant development in the ongoing trial of Dasuki, who faces charges related to money laundering and illegal possession of firearms.
Justice Peter Lifu delivered the ruling, emphasizing that the exhibits had previously been rejected and marked as inadmissible. The judge ruled that re-admitting the same evidence would amount to “judicial rascality” and undermine the integrity of the trial process.
Background of the case and charges against Dasuki
Sambo Dasuki, who served as NSA under former President Goodluck Jonathan, is answering to an amended seven-count charge brought by the Federal Government. The charges primarily revolve around allegations of money laundering and illegal possession of firearms.
According to the prosecution, Dasuki was found on July 17, 2015, at his residence in Asokoro, Abuja, in possession of various firearms without a proper license. This alleged offence violates section 27(1)(a) of the Firearms Act Cap F28 LFN 2004. Additionally, the government claims he retained large sums of money at his home, including $40,000, N5 million, and another $20,000, which they assert were proceeds of unlawful activity under the Money Laundering Prohibition Act 2011.
Further allegations include retention of $150,000 and N37.6 million at locations in Sokoto State on July 16, 2015, also tied to money laundering offences.
Details of the rejected exhibits
The exhibits in question included firearms and ammunition allegedly recovered from Dasuki’s residence. The prosecution listed five Tavor assault rifles, a Macro Uzi with serial number 60244, 20 magazines, a Ministry of Defence calibre gun, and various rounds of ammunition.
Additionally, the prosecution sought to tender a vehicle recovered during the 2015 search, which has reportedly been kept at the Department of State Services (DSS) headquarters in Abuja for the last decade. The prosecution argued that this vehicle was a vital piece of evidence in the trial.
Court’s reasoning for rejecting the evidence
Justice Lifu explained that the court had already ruled on July 10, 2025, rejecting the same exhibits due to a lack of proper foundation and relevance to the charges. The judge noted that since the ruling still subsists, any attempt to reintroduce the evidence would undermine the court’s authority and integrity.
The judge remarked, “Any attempt to toe the paths of going against the same ruling will definitely 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 rejected.”
Defence’s objection and legal stance
Dasuki’s lawyer, Mr. A. A. Usman, strongly opposed the prosecution’s application to re-tender the exhibits. He argued that once evidence has been rejected by a trial court, the only legal recourse is to appeal the ruling at a higher court. Mr. Usman described the fresh application as “baseless, ill-conceived, misplaced, unwarranted and a ploy to draw the hand of the clock backward.”
The defence also highlighted that the exhibits had earlier failed the test of admissibility and insisted that the prosecution’s bid should be dismissed.
Ongoing legal battles and related charges
Aside from the current trial, Dasuki faces two other separate money laundering charges filed by the administration of the late former President Muhammadu Buhari. These charges are pending before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
Dasuki has consistently pleaded not guilty to all allegations leveled against him, maintaining his innocence throughout the prolonged legal proceedings.
This ruling adds another layer of complexity to an already high-profile trial that has drawn significant public and political attention. Legal experts suggest that the Federal Government’s next step may involve appealing the rejection of the evidence to higher courts.
