By Abubakar Yunusa
The Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja on Wednesday dismissed an objection seeking to halt the playing of a video already admitted in evidence in the ongoing trial of an Abuja-based lawyer, Victor Giwa, and another defendant.
The defendants are standing trial over alleged document forgery and impersonation.
At the resumed hearing, prosecuting counsel urged the court to play a video said to show the first defendant addressing a press conference and making comments about the judiciary.
The prosecution argued that the video was relevant to the just determination of the case and had been duly admitted as an exhibit.
However, counsel to the first defendant objected, contending that the electronic evidence did not comply with Section 84(4) of the Evidence Act.
He submitted that the video lacked proper certification and was not accompanied by the required compliance statement. Citing D Silver v. FRN (2016), he urged the court not to rely on what he described as defective electronic evidence.
Counsel to the second defendant aligned with the objection. He relied on Adeleke v. Oyetola (2020) to argue that electronic evidence must strictly comply with statutory provisions before it could be relied upon.
In response, the prosecuting counsel referred the court to Section 4 of the Evidence Act. He argued that the exhibit had already been admitted and that its maker was before the court.
He further contended that the defendant did not challenge the exhibit in his counter-affidavit. Relying on Ekboudom v. APC & Anor (2022), he maintained that the interest of justice required that the video be played.
Replying, counsel to the first defendant insisted that although exhibits attached to motions might be deemed admitted, any specific reliance on electronic evidence must strictly comply with Section 84 of the Evidence Act.
He maintained that the objection was against the playing of the video, not its presence in the court’s record.
In a brief ruling, the trial judge held that the objections ought to have been raised at the point when the exhibit was tendered.
The court consequently overruled the objection and directed that the video be played.
After the video was played in open court, the prosecution applied for a date for ruling on pending motions, including an application for recusal.
The judge subsequently reserved ruling and said the date for delivery would be communicated to counsel.
