![At 3-33 on 9th oct, some children Playing inside Aayin Camp Benue [Photo Credit Popoola Ademola Premium Timesv]](https://i0.wp.com/media.premiumtimesng.com/wp-content/files/2026/03/WhatsApp-Image-2026-03-07-at-05.54.10.jpeg?resize=360%2C180&ssl=1)
The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, declined the application filed by Kabiru Turaki, former Minister of Special Duties and Inter-Governmental Affairs, seeking to stop the police from presenting the DNA test result in the paternity dispute with a lady, Hadiza Baffa.
The judge, Inyang Ekwo, in a ruling on an ex-parte motion, moved by Mr Turaki’s lawyer, Abdulaziz Ibrahim, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), held that he could not grant the prayer sought by the former minister without hearing from the respondents.
|
|
“Upon studying the motion ex-parte and the averments in the affidavit in support, including the affidavit of urgency, I am of the opinion that the prayers cannot be granted without hearing from the respondents,” Mr Ekwo ruled.
The judge therefore ordered Mr Turaki, also a SAN, to put all the respondents in the application on notice within two days of the order.
|
|
|---|
Mr Ekwo directed the respondents to show cause why the prayers sought by the former minister should not be granted.
The judge, who ordered Mr Turaki to serve the respondents with all the processes filed in the suit within two days of the order, adjourned the matter till 24 February for the respondents to show cause.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Mr Turaki sued the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), Inspector-General Police (IGP), Rita Oki Oyintare, a deputy commissioner of police (DCP) in charge of Gender, and Hadiza Musa Baffa.
In an ex parte motion filed on 13 February, Mr Turaki sought an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from presenting, using, or relying on the purported DNA paternity test result he claimed was procured from the DNA Labs Limited or any other DNA laboratory on 5 November 2024, or any other date thereafter.
Why ex-minister is in court
In his 13-ground argument in support of the application, Mr Turaki, who served as minister during the President Goodluck Jonathan administration, said he instituted an action against Hadiza (4th respondent) vide suit No CV/35/2024 on 24 June 2024.
He said in the suit, he sought declaratory prayers, including a perpetual injunction restraining her from parading that she was married to him and that her child is from him.
He said that Hadiza caused several petitions to be written to the police in connection with the subject matter in suit no CV/35/2024 and the petitions were consolidated upon an application by him through a letter dated 19 September 2024.
He said the case was then assigned to the office of Deputy Inspector-General (DIG) of Police on Intelligence for proper and unbiased investigation.
He said that in spite of the consolidation of the petitions and assignment of the investigation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police Intelligence, the third respondent (DCP Oyintare) continued to harass, intimidate and send invitations to the applicant (ex-minister).
“Traumatised with the continuous harassment by the 3rd respondent, the applicant vide a letter dated 1 November 2024 further complained to the 2nd respondent (IGP) against abuse of power and harassment by the 3rd respondent,” he said.
Mr Turaki alleged that the act continued despite IGP’s earlier directive transferring the investigation to the DIG on Intelligence and against the court order in suit number: CV/35/2024, restraining the respondents from interfering with the subject matter of the said suit or carrying out any investigation relating to same pending the determination of the suit.
“That the 3rd respondent who had shown too much inclination to meddle in the investigation against the applicant invited the applicant on the 5 November 2024.
“Upon honouring the 3rd respondent’s invitation on the 5 November 2024, the 3rd respondent insisted that she must take a swab from the applicant and conduct a DNA.
“The applicant protested that he was not going to submit any of his swab sample for DNA by force.
“Thereupon, the 3rd respondent said he was under arrest and can therefore not leave their premises.
“Consequently, the applicant was detained in the respondent’s cell at the Force Criminal Investigation Department Area 10, Garki, Abuja for about six hours from 12 noon till 6 p.m.
“At about 9pm, the applicant’s swab sample was collected by a purported scientist at the behest of the 3rd respondent, after which only he was allowed to go home at about 10pm on Nov. 5, 2024.
ALSO READ: Paternity uncertainty remains high in Nigeria – DNA Testing report
“A criminal charge has been filed against him before the Federal Capital Territory, Magistrate Court, Abuja.
“The respondents intend to rely on the purported DNA test paternity result procured in violation of his fundamental human rights in the said criminal charge.
“Unless this honourable court promptly intervenes, the respondents will rely on the said purported DNA test paternity result, the validity or otherwise being the subject matter of the instant suit.
“Unless the application ex-parte is heard expeditiously, the DNA test paternity result procured by the respondents would be relied upon and used against the applicant who will suffer irreversible injury even if the instant suit is determined in his favour,” Mr Turaki’s filing stated.
Tuesday’s hearing
When the matter was earlier called on Tuesday, Mr Ibrahim, who appeared for Mr Turaki, informed the court that the motion ex-parte sought an interim injunction against the respondents from presenting the DNA test result before an FCT High court.
“What you are asking me to do is to stop them from making use of the result against the applicant.
“Can I stop anybody from going to court? Or can I stop them from tendering it in court? Mr Ekwo asked.
The senior lawyer responded that the judge could make the order “because of the way and manner the test was obtained in violation of the applicant’s fundamental right.”
After Mr Ibrahim moved the motion, the judge declined to grant the request, holding that it would be appropriate to hear from the other parties.
(NAN)
