Court rejects ex-minister’s plea to stop use of DNA paternity test result against him
An Abuja Federal High Court on Tuesday, declined to grant the application filed by Mr Kabiru Turaki, former Special Duties and Inter-Governmental Affairs Minister, to stop the police from presenting the DNA test result in the paternity dispute with a lady, Hadiza Baffa, in another court.
Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a ruling on an ex-parte motion, moved by Turaki’s lawyer, Abdulaziz Ibrahim, SAN, held that he could not grant the relief 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,” Justice Ekwo said.
The judge therefore ordered Turaki to put all the respondents in the application on notice within two days of the order.
Justice Ekwo directed the respondents to show cause in the next adjourned date why the prayers sought by the former minister should not be granted.
The judge, who ordered Turaki to serve the respondents with all the processes filed in the suit within two days of the order, adjourned the matter until Feb. 24 for the respondents to show cause.
Our source reports that Turaki, in the motion ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/244/2025, had sued the Nigeria Police Force (NPF); Inspector-General (I-G) of Police; DCP Rita Oki Oyintare, who is Deputy Commissioner of Police for Gender and Hadiza Musa Baffa as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.
In the motion dated Feb. 11 but filed Feb. 13 by Ibrahim, the ex-minister sought one relief.
He sought “an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents either by themselves, their servants, agents, privies or through other persons, whomsoever and howsoever described from presenting, using, or relying on the purported DNA paternity test result procured from the DNA Labs Limited or any other DNA laboratory on the 5th day of November, 2024, or any other date thereafter, in any civil or criminal proceedings or for any purpose whatsoever against the applicant pending the hearing and determination of the originating motion.”
Giving a 13-ground argument why his application should be granted, Turaki said he instituted an action against Hadiza (4th respondent) vide suit No CV/35/2024 on June 24, 2024.
He said in the suit, he sought declaratory reliefs, including but not limited to a perpetual injunction restraining her from parading that the she was married to him and that her child is from him.
He said that Hadiza caused several petitions to be written to the office of the 1st to 3rd respondents in connection with the subject matter in suit no CV/35/2024 and the petitions were consolidated upon application for consolidation by him vide the letter dated Sept.19, 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.
“That despite the consolidation of the petitions and assignment of the investigation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police Intelligence, the 3 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 1st November, 2024 further complained to the 2nd respondent (I-G) against abuse of power and harassment by the 3rd respondent,” he said.
Turaki alleged that the act continued despite I-G’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 and their privies 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 5th November, 2024.
“Upon honouring the 3rd respondent’s invitation on the 5th November, 2024, the 3rd respondent insisted that she must take a swab from the applicant and conduct a DNA.
“That 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 6 hours from 12 noon till 6pm.
“That thereafter, 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 go home at about 10pm on the 5th November, 2024.
“That a criminal charge has been filed against him before the Federal Capital Territory, Magistrate Court, Abuja.
“That 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.
“That 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.
“That 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.
“That unless this honourable court make interim orders before the determination of the originating motion, the applicant will suffer exceptional hardships,” Turaki said.
When the matter was earlier called on Tuesday, brahim, who appeared for 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? Justice Ekwo asked Ibrahim.
But 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 Ibrahim moved the motion, the judge, who refused the application, held that it would be appropriate to hear from the other parties.
