The Federal Capital Territory High Court, Abuja, on Wednesday rejected an objection seeking to stop the playing of a video allegedly accusing the judiciary of corruption and subsequently reserved ruling on for recusal and other related motions.
The suit involves an Abuja-based lawyer, Victor Giwa, and another defendant, who are standing trial over alleged document forgery and impersonation before the Federal Capital Territory High Court.
At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, prosecuting counsel urged the court to play a video in which the first defendant, victor Giwa was seen addressing a press conference and allegedly castigating the judiciary as corrupt.
The prosecution argued that the video was relevant and necessary for the just determination of the case.
However, counsel to the first defendant 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), counsel submitted that the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Evidence Act rendered the exhibit incapable of being played, urging the court not to embark on what he described as a “fruitless journey.”
Counsel to the second defendant aligned himself with the objection, citing Adeleke v. Oyetola (2020) NWLR (Pt. 1721) to support the argument that electronic evidence must strictly comply with statutory requirements before being relied upon by the court.
In response, prosecuting counsel referred the court to Section 4 of the Evidence Act, arguing 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, counsel to the first defendant 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.
Counsel to the second defendant 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 trial judge held that the objections raised by the first and second defendants ought to have been made at the point when the exhibit was tendered.
The court consequently overruled the objection and ordered the prosecution to play the video earlier admitted as an exhibit.
Following the playing of the video, Prosecuting counsel applied for a date for the court to deliver its ruling on the pending motion.
The judge thereafter reserved ruling on the motions, stating that the date for delivery would be communicated to counsel in due course.