Female DSS Operative Seeks Appeal Court’s Intervention to Quash Arrest Warrant Over Marital Dispute

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 directives regarding the execution and implementation of the arrest warrant issued against her while the appeal against the order is being heard.

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 law enforcement agency from detaining, arresting, harassing, or interfering with her freedom while her appeal against the trial court’s decision is being heard.

Her attorney, Maureen Agbodike of the Chukwuma-Machukwu (SAN) legal practice, filed a move on notice before the court including the reliefs.

In accordance with pertinent legal laws 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 against the trial court’s November 7, 2025, ruling at the Makurdi division of the Court of Appeal.

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

A marital conflict between Monica Robinson (petitioner) and Robinson Chima Robinson (respondent) resulted in an ongoing lawsuit with the number NSD/MG273/2020, which is the basis for Justice Hannatu Kabir’s order.

In particular, on November 7, 2025, the court sentenced the petitioner to prison for violating its December 12, 2023, decision allowing her husband (respondent) access to their child.

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

Due to the petitioner’s alleged repeated violations of the court order granting the respondent access to their only child, the court issued an order on November 7, 2025.

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 only made aware of the December 12, 2023, order when her new attorney took over the case from her previous attorney on June 10, 2024, after obtaining a certified true copy of the order and other procedures.

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

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 of the methods specified under the court order for substituted service.

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

In addition, the petitioner affirmed that she never refused the respondent access to the married kid.

In particular, she claimed that the court’s records show that on March 4, 2023, she complied with the court’s order and brought the marriage’s child, for which she was liable for all travel and lodging costs totaling more than N500,000.

said she had repeatedly asked her husband to visit his son and offer financial assistance for his upbringing, 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 transportation or lodging.

that her husband’s persistent insistence that she cover the cost of the trip and lodging prevented the planned visit from happening.

That despite his father’s persistent reluctance, she has continued to be in charge of providing for the child’s physical, social, and scholastic needs.

Instead, the responder has continuously threatened to use force to remove the marriage’s child.

On June 21, 2024, she filed an affidavit of facts outlining the actions taken and the attempts made by her attorney to help comply with the aforementioned order, along with the explanation for her unintentional absence from court.

“Her senior attorney adopted the aforementioned declaration of facts on July 24, 2024, and urged the court to make the appropriate measures to guarantee that the respondent had access to his son in accordance with the court’s December 12, 2023, ruling.

In fact, she claimed that when her petition was postponed until September 19, 2024, for the report of settlement, her senior attorney promptly called a conference 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 upkeep, 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 guarantee that the court’s mandate was fulfilled.

The meeting decided that the father would be able to see his son on July 6, 2024, and that the petitioner would make the necessary preparations to make the visit a success.

Sadly, the respondent’s much-anticipated visit to his kid on July 6, 2024, unexpectedly fell through since the father claimed the date was inconvenient.

“That the petitioner offered his son five different dates for the same visitation, but he oddly rejected 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 scheduled visiting dates, the respondent failed to make any visits.

“That her employment records will be automatically impacted by her persistent absences from work.”

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