Abuja court allows video in trial despite defence protest
High Court Denies Motion to Exclude Video Evidence in Forgery Case
ABUJA—The Federal Capital Territory High Court has ruled against a motion from defense attorneys seeking to prevent a video from being presented as evidence in a case involving allegations of document forgery and impersonation.
The case centers on Victor Giwa, an Abuja-based lawyer, and another defendant. During a hearing on Wednesday, the prosecution requested permission to play a video of Giwa speaking at a press conference. In the video, Giwa purportedly criticized the judiciary, describing it as corrupt. Prosecutors contended that the video was essential for aiding the court’s determination of the case.
Defense lawyers objected, arguing that the video failed to meet the legal standards for electronic evidence outlined in Section 84(4) of the Evidence Act. They claimed the video was not properly certified and did not comply with the rules governing the admissibility of digital evidence. The defense maintained that allowing the video to be screened would violate legal protocols.
The attorney for the second defendant corroborated this objection, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to the conditions governing electronic evidence.
In response, the prosecution asserted that the video had been previously accepted as an exhibit. It pointed out that Giwa, who recorded the video, was present in court and did not contest its admission in his counter-affidavit. The prosecution argued that the video should be played in court to serve the interests of justice.
Defense counsel countered that even if the exhibit had been submitted and accepted earlier, the rules governing the public presentation of electronic evidence must still be observed. They clarified that their objection pertained specifically to the video being played in open court, not to its presence in the court file.
The defense further argued that Section 84 of the Evidence Act, which specifically pertains to electronic evidence, should take precedence over more general provisions.
In a brief ruling, the trial judge noted that objections should have been raised when the video was first introduced as evidence. Consequently, the court dismissed the defense’s objections and ordered the prosecution to proceed with the video presentation.
After the video was shown, the prosecution requested a date for the court to rule on additional pending applications in the case. The judge announced that decisions on those motions would be communicated to counsel at a later date.
