Naira Marley to know fate on shocking EFCC evidence – Daily Post Nigeria

Justice I. Nicholas Oweibo of the Federal Excessive Court docket, Ikoyi, Lagos, has adjourned until Could 13, 2020, ruling on the admissibility of “stunning proof” in opposition to Azeez Fashola, a.okay.a Naira Marley.

The courtroom can even rule on continuation of Fashola’s trial for his alleged involvement in bank card fraud.

Naira Marley is standing trial on an 11-count cost of conspiracy and bank card fraud, most well-liked in opposition to him by the Financial and Monetary Crimes Fee, EFCC.

On Friday, prosecution witness 2 (PW2), Augustine Anosike, forensic skilled with the EFCC, sought to tender in proof a compact disc (CD) containing data, evaluation and extractions from the defendant’s telephone.

On the earlier sitting, Anosike instructed the courtroom that the forensic evaluation carried out on Naira Marley’s iPhone revealed what he known as mind-boggling proof in opposition to him which have been extracted and transferred right into a CD, alongside printed paperwork.

Prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo introduced the paperwork earlier than the courtroom and urged the courtroom to confess them in proof.

The defence counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN), nonetheless opposed the admissibility of the paperwork on the grounds that the CD doesn’t have the right authentication required by regulation, and subsequently improperly obtained, as contained within the Cyber Crime Prohibition and Prevention Act, 2015.

Ojo additionally argued that there could have been interferences whereas the paperwork have been being produced on the forensic lab of the EFCC. He lastly submitted that the CD doesn’t bear any identify, title, division, however a signature which may’t be authenticated.

He urged the courtroom to dismiss the admissibility of the paperwork.

However Oyedepo stated that there was no contravention of Part 39 of Cyber Crime Prohibition and Prevention Act, 2015 as claimed by the defence counsel, as what was sought to be tendered is the forensic content material of the defendant’s iPhone that was already admitted in proof.

He added that the extractions earlier than the courtroom are materially related to the cost.