A.G OF THE FEDERATION v. ANUEBUNWA( 2022) LPELR-57750(SC) (Pp 28 - 38 Paras C - D)
In determining the extent of the application of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 on computer generated documents, the Supreme Court, Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU (JSC) held as follows:
"My Lords, extradition of a citizen by the country of origin or a host country obligation arising from multilateral and bilateral international treaties between countries is a special (quasi-criminal) proceeding which is substantially regulated by the Extradition Act Cap E25 LFN 2004, Extradition (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Federal High Court (Extradition Proceedings) Rules 2015. A lot of energy has been expended by both sides on the issue of the applicability of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 to Extradition proceedings. Section 84 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act provides as follows: (1) In any proceeding, a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions in Subsection (2) of this Section are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question. (2) The conditions referred to in Subsection (1) of this Section are: (a) That the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by anybody, whether corporate or not, or by any individual; (b) That over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived; (c) That throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) That the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities. The correct interpretation to be given to Section 84 of the Evidence Act, where electronically generated document is sought to be tendered is that such electronically generated evidence must be certified and must comply with the preconditions laid down in Section 84(2). It appears that the documents in question do not even fall within the scope of Section 84 of the Evidence Act. The documents relied upon by the Appellant are as follows: i. Original copy of Letter of Certification with the seal of the United States of America's Department of State dated 18th day of October, 2017 signed by the Secretary of State of the United States Rex W. Tillerson. ii. Original copy of Letter of Certification with the seal of the United State of America's Department of State dated 6th day of October, 2017 signed by the Director/Deputy Director, Office of Internal Affairs, Criminal Division, Department of Justice and duly commissioned and qualified in the presence of the Attorney General of the United States - Jefferson B. Sessions. iii. Original copy of a letter of Certification, dated 6th October, 2017, certifying the affidavit and all attached documents in support of the request for the extradition of the Respondent and iv. Original copy of affidavit in support of request for the extradition of the Respondent and duly sworn to by Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York - Adrew K. Chan. These documents are three original letters and one original affidavit. These are not computer-generated documents. The wordings of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 do not contemplate that before an original official letter is tendered and admitted in evidence, the party tendering same must satisfy the conditions in the provision. Neither does the provision envisage same where the admissibility of an original affidavit is in issue. It would be ridiculous to assume that a document which was typed using a computer is a computer-generated document. For example, it is the algorithm or data imputed by a Bank Officer into the bank's data base that generates the various information on the statement of account of a customer. That Bank Statement is a computer-generated document which has to be certified by the officer to ensure that no one illegally or without authorization tampered with the source data as officially imputed in the computer. Also, the certification must include that the computer was operational or in good working order when the document was generated. I cite with approval the book by S.T. Hons "Law of Evidence in Nigeria" (Based on the Nigerian Evidence Act, 2011) VOL. 1, 2nd Edition particularly Pages 468-469 wherein the learned Senior Advocate and author opined as follows: "Be it noted that the legislature, in enacting the various sections of the Act that deal with admissibility of computer evidence under the 2011 Act never intended this practical result. For instance, and as will be shown hereunder, Section 84 of the Act, which deals generally with admissibility of computer generated evidence, was lifted directly from Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as amended and substantially from Section 69 of the English Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, popularly called in the United Kingdom the PACE Act, 1984. A deep consideration of most of the reported cases from those jurisdictions has revealed only one pattern: Disputes as to admissibility arise only with respect to admissibility of hi-tech evidence generated from the computer, especially evidence that has much to do with accuracy of the computer or any other machine generating it. It is not part of the practice in India and England that spurious objections be raised on admissibility of commonplace, ordinary documents printed out of the computer, as is being done daily in Nigerian Courts today. It is very significant to further note that just like Section 64B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 69 of the PACE Act, Section 84 of the Nigerian Evidence Act, 2011, intends that only complex evidence generated from the computer, against which the calculating or measuring accuracy of the computer is depended upon or stands to be tested is to be objected to or subjected to scrutiny by the Courts and not ordinary documents printed out of the computer. Indeed, even before the enactment of the 2011 Evidence Act, computer printouts of ordinary documents like letters, deeds and correspondences were easily admissible, the only objections then being as to whether they were pleaded, or they were originals, or they were admissible as photocopies only upon fulfillment of certain conditions. It will amount to a dishonest attempt to rubbish the intendment of the new Evidence Act, therefore, to have computer evidence admissible as provided in the various Sections of the Act, if such spurious objections are entertained and at times upheld against the admissibility of ordinary documents emanating from the computer, like letters, deeds, etc. Trial Judges should always scrupulously resist such attempts, if for nothing else, to avoid unnecessary delays in trials occasioned by such unwarranted objections." The opinion of the learned author accords with the law and I adopt it as mine. In the circumstances of this case, the bundle of documents, not being computer-generated documents, ought to have been relied upon by the Court below in the extradition proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment