3 hours ago
2
A High Court in Abuja has refused a request by defence lawyers to prevent a video from being played in court in a case involving alleged document forgery and impersonation.
The case is before the Federal Capital Territory High Court and involves Abuja-based lawyer Victor Giwa and another defendant.
At Wednesday’s hearing, the prosecution sought the court’s permission to play a video showing Giwa speaking at a press conference. In the video, he allegedly criticised the judiciary and described it as corrupt. The prosecution argued that the video was necessary to assist the court in properly determining the case.
Lawyers for the first defendant objected. They argued that the video did not meet the legal requirements for electronic evidence under Section 84(4) of the Evidence Act. According to them, the video was not properly certified and did not comply with the rules governing the admissibility of digital evidence in court. They contended that allowing it to be played would contravene the law.
The second defendant’s lawyer supported the objection, insisting that electronic evidence must strictly comply with the conditions set out in the Evidence Act before it can be relied upon.
In response, the prosecution argued that the video had already been admitted as an exhibit. They informed the court that the person who made the video, the first defendant, was present in court and had not challenged the exhibit in his counter-affidavit. The prosecution maintained that the video was properly before the court and should be played in the interest of justice.
The defence replied that even if the exhibit had been attached to a motion and accepted earlier, playing the video in open court required strict compliance with the law governing electronic evidence. They stressed that their objection was not to the document being in the court file, but to its being played in court.
The second defendant’s lawyer further argued that Section 84 of the Evidence Act, which deals specifically with electronic evidence, should take precedence over more general provisions.
In a brief ruling, the trial judge stated that the objections ought to have been raised when the video was first presented as evidence. The court therefore dismissed the objections and directed the prosecution to play the video.
After the video was played, the prosecution asked the court to fix a date to rule on other pending applications in the case.
The judge stated that rulings on those motions would be delivered at a later date and that counsel would be notified accordingly.
