The case of Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Senator Mohammed Ali Ndume is among the pioneer criminal cases that dealt
with admissibility or otherwise of e-evidence or computer generated evidence
e.g. call logs, SMS etc. under section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011. In that
case the trial court admitted some computer generated items in evidence but on appeal the evidence was ruled inadmissible. Therefore, the Court of Appeal
judgements in Senator Mohammed Ali Ndume
v. FRN delivered on 17/12/13 in Appeal No. CA/A/78/CR/2013 and
CA/A/78A/CR/2013, are watershed cases with regards to interpretation or
application of section 84 of the Evidence Act in CRIMINAL trials yet it seems
that no law report in Nigeria has reported them.
The appellate court decisions ought to be
reported so as to make them more readily or easily available to many lawyers
and thus contribute to the development of our evidence law. The importance of
many a lawyer having access to the appellate court judgement has become
critical as many criminal trials, especially those involving highly placed
persons, to a large extent is hinged on the admissibility or otherwise of text
messages, call data records, bank statements and other forms of computer
generated evidence. For instance one of the reasons for the court in upholding
the no case submission in Ndume's
case was the expulsion from evidence, certain computer generated evidence by
the Court of Appeal, which pieces of evidence were vital to the prosecution’s
case.
Also in the trial of Rickey Tarfa SAN on a two-count
charge of obstruction of justice and attempting to pervert the course of
justice, the prosecution tendered in evidence details of alleged telephone
conversations and text messages between the accused and a High Court judge in
an ongoing bribery case.
Furthermore, in the ongoing trial of Nwobike SAN
by the EFCC on 11 counts bordering on perverting the course of justice and
offering gratification to public officials, the accused was confronted with
various text messages he was alleged to have sent to court officials to
illegally influence court cases he was handling.
No comments:
Post a Comment