The Abuja High Court on Wednesday allowed a video to be played at the trial of a lawyer, Victor Giwa, charged with judicial corruption.
Mr Giwa and his co-defendant, Bukola Ibitade, are standing trial over alleged document forgery and impersonation before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie.
They are being prosecuted for forging official documents and impersonating a SAN, Awa Kalu, with the intent to mislead the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation into withdrawing an earlier criminal charge against Mr Giwa.
At the resumed sitting, the prosecution counsel Eristo Asaph urged the court to play a video in which Mr Giwa was seen addressing a press conference, alleging and castigating the judiciary as corrupt.
Mr Asaph argued that the video was relevant and necessary for the just determination of the case.
However, Mr Giwa’s counsel, Farooq Akanbi, objected to the application, contending that the video was fundamentally defective and inadmissible under Section 84(4) of the Evidence Act. He argued that the electronic evidence lacked certification of compliance and was not sworn in according to the law.
Relying on D Silver v. FRN (2016) LPELR-41257 (SC), he submitted that the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Evidence Act rendered the exhibit incapable of being played.
He therefore urged the court not to embark on what he described as a “fruitless journey”.
Counsel to the second defendant, Ogbu Aboje, aligned himself with the objection. He cited Adeleke v. Oyetola (2020) NWLR (Pt. 1721) to support the argument that electronic evidence must strictly comply with statutory requirements before it may be relied upon by the court.
Responding, Mr Asaph referred the court to Section 4 of the Evidence Act. He argued that the exhibit had already been admitted and that the maker of the video, identified as the first defendant, was before the court. He contended that the defendant did not challenge the exhibit in his counter-affidavit and urged the court to hold that the video was properly before it.
The prosecution relied on Ekboudom v. APC & Anor (2022), submitting that the interest of justice required that the video be played.
Replying, Mr Akanbi maintained that while exhibits attached to motions may be deemed admitted upon adoption, any attempt to single out an exhibit for use, particularly electronic evidence, must strictly comply with the provisions of the Evidence Act.
He reiterated that the objection was specifically against the playing of the video, not its mere presence in the court’s record.
Mr Aboje further argued that Section 84 of the Evidence Act specifically governs electronic evidence and overrides the general provisions of Section 4. He cited AGF v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) and FRN v. Fani-Kayode (2010) NWLR (Pt. 1214) 481 in support of his position.
In a brief ruling, the judge held that the objections raised by the first and second defendants ought to have been made at the time the exhibit was tendered. He consequently overruled the objection and ordered the prosecution to play the video earlier admitted as an exhibit.
After the video played, Mr Asaph asked for a date.
The judge, thereafter, reserved ruling on the motions until a date to be communicated to the parties.
(NAN)
