Appeal Court Asked to Void Arrest Warrant Against Female DSS Officer Amid Marital Issues

Abuja -Ms. Monica Robinson, a female employee of the Department of State Security Service (DSS), has asked the Court of Appeal to overturn both the arrest warrant that a High Court issued for her and the decision that sentenced her to prison for contempt of court.

Additionally, the appellant requested that the appellate court issue an order instructing the Inspector General of Police to uphold the status quo ante bellum and to refrain from taking any action or issuing any directive regarding the execution and implementation of the arrest warrant issued against her while the appeal against the said order is being heard and decided.

Furthermore, Ms. Robinson, who filed a stay of execution of the aforementioned trial court order, is requesting an order of injunction prohibiting the IGP or any other law enforcement agency from detaining, arresting, harassing, or interfering with her freedom while her appeal against the trial court’s decision is being heard.

The reliefs are detailed in a notice motion that her attorney, Maureen Agbodike, of the Chukwuma-Machukwu (SAN) legal practice, filed with the court.

In accordance with the pertinent legal requirements and court regulations, including section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 constitution and order 56 rule 1 of the Nasarawa State High Court (Civil Procedure regulations) 2010, the motion was filed against Robinson Chima Robinson and the Inspector General of Police.

The motion was based on Monica Robinson’s ongoing appeal at the Court of Appeal’s Makurdi division against the trial court’s November 7, 2025, ruling.

In addition to the appeal that was already filed on February 25, 2025, by the Makurdi Division of the Court Appeal, the appellant also filed a move to halt the execution of the Nasarawa State High Court’s order.

An ongoing lawsuit between Monica Robinson (petitioner) and Robinson Chima Robinson (defendant), designated NSD/MG273/2020, is the result of a marital crisis that gave rise to Justice Hannatu Kabir’s decision.

In particular, on November 7, 2025, the court sentenced the petitioner to prison for violating its December 12, 2023, decision allowing her spouse (respondent) to see their married kid.

As a result, the court issued a warrant for the Nigeria Police to arrest the petitioner, after which she will be turned over to any correctional facility under the court’s jurisdiction until she is prepared to clear herself of the contempt.

The court judgment on November 7, 2025, was the consequence of the petitioner’s multiple claimed violations of the court order granting the respondent access to their only child.

However, the petitioner claimed in her affidavit of facts supporting the motion for stay that she was not in violation of the court’s orders because she was unaware of the December 12, 2023, order until June 10, 2024, when her new attorney took over the case from her previous attorney and obtained a certified true copy of the order and other procedures.

She added that she was unaware of the enrolled order for access to the child of the marriage dated December 12, 2023, the order for substituted service, the respondent request letter for access to the child of the marriage, or any other correspondence pertaining to that matter from the DSS offices in Abuja and Bayelsa State, where she is currently employed.

She further claimed that she was never served with the statutory Forms 48 and 49 that the court ordered on April 16, 2024, using any method specified by the court order for substituted service.

“That in order to initiate contempt proceedings, the statutory Forms 48 and 49 must be served.

In addition, the petitioner affirmed that she had never refused the respondent access to the couple’s kid.

In particular, she claimed that the court’s records show that on March 4, 2023, she complied with the court’s order to bring the marriage’s child, and that she was liable for the entire cost of the flight and lodging, which came to more than N500,000.

said she had asked her husband several times to visit his son and help with his upbringing financially, but he had not complied.

When she contacted the father (respondent) again in January 2024 to plan a visit with his kid, he insisted that she bring the child to Owerri instead, without arranging for lodging or transportation.

“That the planned visit was canceled because her spouse persisted in demanding that she cover the cost of the trip and lodging.

Because his father has consistently refused to provide for his child’s physical, social, and educational needs, she has continued to be in charge of them up to this point.

Instead, the respondent has repeatedly threatened to use force to remove the marriage’s child.

“That on June 21, 2024, she filed an affidavit of facts outlining the procedures and her attorney’s efforts to help comply with the aforementioned order, along with the explanation for her unintentional absence from court.

“That on July 24, 2024, her senior attorney accepted the aforementioned affidavit of facts and urged the court to make the necessary arrangements to guarantee that the respondent has access to his son in accordance with the court’s December 12, 2023, order.”

She said that after her petition was postponed to September 19, 2024, for the report of settlement, her senior attorney promptly called a meeting of the parties in his office to discuss potential solutions to the dilemma.

She specifically claimed that some of the topics discussed at the meeting included the creation of a communication channel between her and her husband so that he could always and easily contact and communicate with his son, as well as the resumption of his father’s payment for the child’s maintenance, visitation rights, and other various matters pertaining to the child.

Counsel in the lawsuit chose to keep a single channel of contact through their Whatsapp platforms for ongoing and convenient conversation in order to further ensure that the court’s mandate was carried out.

“That the conference decided that on July 6, 2024, the father will have access to his kid, and the petitioner will make the necessary arrangements to guarantee the success of the stated visit.

Unfortunately, the respondent’s much-anticipated visit to his son on July 6, 2024, was unsuccessful since the father claimed that the date was inconvenient.

“That the petitioner offered five different dates for the father to visit his son, but he oddly declined and turned down such arrangements at the petitioner’s expense.”

“That despite the petitioner’s repeated requests for a cause to miss work on the five planned visitation dates, the respondent did not make the visitation.

that her persistent absences from work will be automatically deducted from her job history.

The petitioner further claimed that on December 10, 2024, she spent more than N350,000 in the court’s premises with the couple’s child, only to be informed that the court would not be in session due to a strike.