An Abuja High Court on Wednesday permitted the playing of a video in the ongoing trial of Abuja-based lawyer, Victor Giwa, who is facing charges related to alleged judicial corruption.
Giwa and his co-defendant, Bukola Ibitade, are standing trial before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie on allegations of document forgery and impersonation.
The prosecution alleges that the defendants forged official documents and impersonated a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Awa Kalu, with the intent to mislead the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation into withdrawing an earlier criminal charge against Giwa.
At the resumed hearing, prosecution counsel Eristo Asaph urged the court to play a video in which Giwa was seen addressing a press conference and allegedly criticising the judiciary. He argued that the video was relevant to the just determination of the case.
Counsel to the first defendant, Farooq Akanbi, objected, contending that the video was inadmissible under Section 84(4) of the Evidence Act due to non-compliance with certification requirements for electronic evidence. He cited judicial authorities to support his argument that failure to meet statutory provisions rendered the exhibit defective.
Counsel to the second defendant, Ogbu Aboje, aligned with the objection, maintaining that electronic evidence must strictly comply with statutory requirements before it can be relied upon by the court.
In response, Asaph argued that the video had already been admitted as an exhibit and that the defendant, identified as the maker of the recording, was present in court. He maintained that the defence had not challenged the exhibit at the appropriate stage and urged the court to allow it to be played in the interest of justice.
In a brief ruling, Justice Onwuegbuzie held that objections to the admissibility of the exhibit should have been raised at the point it was tendered. He overruled the objections and directed that the video, already admitted in evidence, be played in open court.
Following the playing of the video, the prosecution requested an adjournment. The court subsequently reserved ruling on the pending motions to a date to be communicated to the parties.