ex-NSA Dasuki with one of his lawyers, Joseph Daodu SAN

Tobi Soniyi in Abuja

For the second time, an Abuja High Court sitting at Maitama, Abuja, has dismissed an application brought before it by the immediate past National Security Adviser (NSA), Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd.), for want of merit.

In the application, Dasuki had asked the court for an order prohibiting the Federal Government and any of its agencies from further prosecuting him on the alleged diversion of public funds meant for the procurement of arms for the military or seeking any form of indulgence before any court in the country until the order admitting him to bail was obeyed.

He also asked for an order discharging him of all the offences contained in the charge on the grounds that the charge could not lawfully be prosecuted by a government that was in brazen contempt of a lawful court order.

Alternatively, Dasuki urged the court for an order staying further proceedings in the charge until he has exhausted the remedies available to him in law for the enforcement of his right to liberty as preserved by the bail order granted him.

But the trial judge, Justice Peter Affen, in his ruling, cited Sections 221 and 396 (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), and held that it was common knowledge that Dasuki was re-arrested upon perfecting his bail condition.

Justice Yusuf Baba of another Abuja High Court Court had also dismissed a similar application filed by Dasuki in which the court held that the Department of State Service (DSS) never disobeyed any court order in re-arresting him.

Similarly, Justice Affen opined that it was common knowledge that Dasuki was rearrested upon perfecting his bail conditions, adding that even if the respondent (EFCC) was in contempt of court, it did not give the court the power to discharge Dasuki of the criminal charges levelled against him.

He held that the court did not make any order barring any other agency

of government from arresting Dasuki for further investigation as regards the matter or any other one that might come up.

The court held that for the issue of contempt of court to be raised, there must be substantial evidence to proof that an order of the court had been disobeyed.