A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed an ex-parte request by former Minister of Special Duties, Kabiru Turaki, to prevent the Nigeria Police from presenting a DNA test result in an ongoing paternity dispute.
Justice Inyang Ekwo, delivering the ruling on Tuesday, refused to grant the interim injunction sought by Turaki, who argued that the DNA test was unlawfully conducted and violated his fundamental rights.
Turaki had filed the motion alongside a substantive suit (FHC/ABJ/CS/244/2025), challenging the process through which the police obtained his DNA samples.
The respondents in the suit include the Nigeria Police Force, the Inspector General of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police for Gender Rita Oki Oyintare, and Hadiza Baffa, the woman at the center of the paternity dispute.
Turaki’s legal counsel, Abdulaziz Ibrahim (SAN), argued that the DNA result should not be presented as evidence in any legal proceedings. However, Justice Ekwo questioned whether the court could prevent a party from tendering evidence before a court of law.
The judge ruled that all parties must be heard before making any decision and directed Turaki to serve the respondents with court documents within two days.
The case has been adjourned to February 24 for further proceedings, during which the respondents are expected to explain why the injunction should not be granted.
Turaki’s affidavit revealed that he had earlier filed a suit (CV/35/2024) at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in June 2024, seeking to restrain Baffa from claiming she was married to him or had a child for him.
Despite this, he said the police invited him for questioning based on Baffa’s petitions.
He alleged that on November 5, 2024, he was detained for six hours at the Force Criminal Investigation Department in Abuja and compelled to provide a DNA sample against his will.
He claimed the police intended to use the DNA test result against him in an ongoing criminal case at the FCT Magistrate Court.
Turaki argued that unless the court intervened, he could suffer “irreversible injury” if the disputed DNA result was admitted as evidence.