THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONICALLY GENERATED EVIDENCE IN NIGERIA:

CURRENT IMPLICATIONS FOR THE HEARSAY RULE

BY

AMADI OGBONDAMATI OWANEMI

MATRIC NO: 12/LAW01/040

BEING A LONG ESSAY SUBMITTED TO THE COLLEGE OF LAW, AFE BABALOLA

UNIVERSITY, ADO-EKITI, EKITI STATE, NIGERIA

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF

BACHELOR OF LAWS(LL.B) DEGREE

JUNE, 2017

i
 DECLARATION

I, Amadi Ogbondamati Owanemi with Matric No 12/LAW01/040, hereby declare that this Long

Essay titled ‘THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONICALLY GENERATED EVIDENCE:

CURRENT IMPLICATIONS FOR THE HEARSAY RULE’ undertaken under the supervision of

Mr. Nnamdi Ikpeze, apart from the materials taken from other people’s work and for which due

credit has been given, is my original work submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for

the award of Degree of Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) of Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria.

………………………. ……………………………………….

Amadi Ogbondamati .O. Date

ii
 CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Long Essay, THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONICALLY

GENERATED EVIDENCE: CURRENT IMPLICATION FOR THE HEARSAY RULE was

carried under my supervision by AMADI OGBONDAMATI OWANEMI (MATRIC NUMBER

12/LAW01/066), in partial fulfilment of the award of the Bachelor of Laws degree (L.L.B) in the

College of Law, Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti.

..…………………………………… …………………………………..
Barr. Nnamdi Ikpeze Date
(Supervisor)

iii
 DEDICATION

This project is dedicated to the One who gives Life and created knowledge and Understanding;

and to my parents Chief Barr. Temple A. Amadi and Lolo Ineba Hilda Amadi for their unending

support and love in all aspects of life, to my supervisor, Mr. Nnamdi Ikpeze for his work and

support without which I may not have completed this project and all those who contributed to

making this project a success. May God cause his countenance to shine on You all.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The holy bible speaks that if the Lord does not guide, the watchman watches in vain. It is to

Jehovah God Almighty, that I owe most inestimably, for only He knows the reason and the fashion

this humble effort has come to fruition. My Only God the debt I owe you cannot be measured.

Firstly, You have paid the debt You did not owe on the cross because I had a debt I could not pay.

Therefore I offer myself to You as a living sacrifice, for use to your glory.

I also hereby express my utmost gratitude to my loving parents, brothers and sister: Chief Barr.

Temple A. Amadi and Lolo Ineba Amadi, Chimenem, Achinike, Omasirichim and Sarinma

Hachikaru Amadi for supporting me throughout the long, boring hours, days and months that was

dedicated to the writing of this thesis.

I am extremely appreciative of the contributions of the following persons and personalities: Hon.

Justice Adolphus Enebeli of the Rivers State High Court, Mr Nnamdi Ikpeze, Barrister V.C

Mcfrido.

I will not in the slightest way forget the contributions of my supervisor: Mr. Nnamdi Ikpeze who

assisted in proof reading, conducting of tutorials, and provision of research materials and facilities.

In this regard, I would also acknowledge the librarians of Afe- Babalola University, Rivers State

University of Science and Technology.

Finally, to all those who have one or the other, directly or indirectly contributed to the success

story herein recorded: The Provost College of Law, Proffessor Smaranda Olarinde for her efforts

in promoting academic excellence and discipline in the College of Law; Barrister Ngozi Odiaka,

Barrister Ajakaiye whose doors are always open for students, Proffessor Chris Ohorugo who has

contributed to my academic success in a way words would hardly be sufficient to express.

v
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ALL ER - All England Report

ALL NLR - All Nigeria Law Report

CAP - Chapter

CD - Compact Disc

EA - Evidence Act

ED - Edition

ESI - Electronically Stored Information

FRE - Federal Rules of Evidence

FWLR - Federation Weekly Law Report

ICT - Information and Communication Technology

IT - Information Technology

KB - King’s Bench

LFN - Laws of the Federation of Nigeria

MR - Master of the Rolls

NWLR - Nigeria Weekly Law Report

PG - Page

P.T - Part

vi
QBD. - Queens Bench Division

SAN - Senoir Advocate of Nigeria

SC - Supreme Court

SEC - Section

UK - United Kingdom

US - United States

VCD - Visual Compact Disc

WACA - West African Court of Appeal

WLR - Weekly Law Report

vii
 TABLE OF CASES
A

African International Bank ltd v. Integrated Dimensional System ltd & Ors

Archibong v. Edak

Attorney- General of Abia State & Ors v. Attorney General of the Federation & Ors

Bekee & Ors v. Bekee

Bornu Holding Company Ltd v. Bogoco

C&C Construction Ltd v Okhai (2003) 12 SCM 65

Canatxx Gas Storage Ltd v. Silverhawk Capital Partner

Collin Tapper (2010) Cross and Tapper on Evidence (12th ed.). P.64 Oxford University Press. 32

Commonwealth v. Koch

Continental Sales Ltd v. R. Shipping Inc

Dpp v. Mckeown

Duriminiya v. Commissioner of Police

Egbue v. Araka

viii
Elizabeth Anyaebosi v. R.T. Briscoe

Ezekwesili & Ors. v. Agbapuonwu & Ors

Federal Polytechnic Ede & Ors v. Oyebanji.

Felicia Ojo v Dr. Gharoro & 2 ors

Garba & Ors v. University of Maiduguri

Geoffrey Amano v. United Bank for Africa (UBA) PLC

Holdent International Ltd v. Petersville Nigeria Ltd

Ifegwu V. UBN PLC

Imoh v. State

Jacob v. A.G Akwa Ibom State

Jimoh v. State

Judicial Service Committee v. Omo

Kajubo v. The State

ix
koiki v. Magnusson

kubor & Anor. V. Dickson & Ors

Lorraine v. Markel

Manuel v. the State

Myers v. DPP

Motanyo v. Elinwa

NBA & ORS V. Fawehinmi

Nwokoro v. Ashue

Obasi &Anor.v. Onwuka & Ors

Obatuga & Anor v. Oyebokun & Ors

Oguma Associated Company Ltd v. IBWA Ltd 27

Omychund v Baker

Omenga v. State

Onyeanwusi v. Okpukpara

x
P

Ports and Cargo Handling Services Company ltd &Ors v. Migfo Nigeria ltd & Anor

Queen v. Wilcox.

R V. Oniteri

R v. Silver Luck

R. v. Itule

State v. Thompson

Udoro v Governor of Akwa Ibom State

United States v. Safavian

US v. Feber

Venkatesan v. State

Yesufu v. ACB

Yusufuali v. State of Mahashtra

xi
 TABLE OF STATUTES

EVIDENCE ACT CAP E.14 LFN 2004

Evidence Act, 2004
EVIDENCE ACT 2011
Section 37 of the Evidence Act, 2011
Section 38 of the Evidence Act, 2011
Section 41 of the Evidence Act, 2011
Section 51 of the Evidence Act, 2011
Section 52 of the Evidence Act, 2011
Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011
Section 257 of the Evidence Act 2011
Section 258 of the Evidence Act, 2011

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2011

Section 32 Freedom of Information Act

FOREIGN STATUTES
UNITED KINGDOM
S. 1 Civil Evidence Act 1995

INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

S. 65 Indian Evidence Act
S.65 A Indian Evidence Act

UNITED STATES FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

Rule 1001(3) US FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE.

xii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLEPAGE…………................................................................................................................... i

DECLARATION……………………………………………………………………………....... ii

CERTIFICATION

PAGE………………………………………………………………………………………..….. iii

DEDICATION…………………..…………………………………………………………..….. iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………..……………………………………………………………... v

LIST OF ABBREVIATION………………………..…………………………………………....vi

TABLE OF CASES……………………………………………..……………………………....viii

TABLE OF

STATUTES……………………………………………………………………………………...xii

TABLE OF

CONTENT………………..……………………………………………………………………. xiii

ABSTRACT……………….…………………………………………………………………... xvi

 CHAPTER ONE : GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.0 : INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY………………………………..… 1

1.1 : STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM…………………………………………………..……3

xiii
1.2 : OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY…………………………………………………………... 3

1.3 : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………….. ...3

1.4 : SCOPE OF STUDY………………………………………………………………………..3

1.5 : SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY………………………………………………………..4

1.6 : DEFINITION OF TERMS………………………………………………………….……...4

1.7 : CHAPTER OUTLINE………………………………………………………………........ 14

 CHAPTER TWO

2.0: REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………………………………………... 12

 CHAPTER THREE

3.0: ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONICALLY GENERATED EVIDENCE UNDER THE

OLD EVIDENCE ACT……………………………………………………………………..21

3.1: ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONICALLY GENERATED EVIDENCE UNDER THE

NEW EVIDENCE ACT, 2011…………………………………………………………...…23

3.2: ADMISSIBILITY OF DIFFERENT FORMS OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE………….. 26

3.2.1: EMAILS………………………………………………………………………………….. 26

3.2.2: SHORT MESSAGE SERVICES (SMS)………………………………………………… 29

3.2.3: TAPES AND VIDEO RECORDING……………………………………………………..31

3.2.4: DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS…………………………………………………………….. 33

xiv
3.2.5: SOCIAL MEDIA………………………………………………………………………… 33

3.2.6: AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE (ATM)……………………………………………35

3.2.7: INEC SMART CARD READER MACHINE……………………………………………36

3.3: CHALLENGES OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE………………………………………….37

3.3.1: RELIABILITY OF THE COMPUTER…………………………………………………...37

3.3.2: AUTHENTICITY………………………………………………………………………....41

3.3.3: INTEGRITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY………………………………………...……..42

3.3.4: THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE…………………………………………………………..43

3.3.5: THE BEST EVIDENCE UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT 2011………………………...44

3.3.6: THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE AND COMPUTER GENERATED EVIDENCE……....44

3.4: BRIEF CRITIQUE OF THE EVIDENCE ACT………………….………………..………..45

3.5: WEIGHT ASCRIBABLE TO ELECTRONICALLY GENERATED EVIDENCE………..46

 CHAPTER FOUR

4.1: INTRODUCTION: HEARSAY EVIDENCE/RULE……………………………………….48

4.2: CURRENT IMPLICATIONS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

ON THE HEARSAY RULE……………………………………………………………….. 51

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION………………………………….......60

5.1: RECOMMENDATION……………………………………………………………………63
xv
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………65

xvi
ABSTRACT

The modification of the Nigerian Law of Evidence to global realities has no doubt laid to rest the

divergences of judicial opinions with regards the admissibility of Electronically Generated

Evidence. However, the current implications the admissibility of electronically generated evidence

have on the Hearsay Rule have not been considered by many authors, jurists, texts etc.

The purpose of this work is to take into account the admissibility of Electronically Generated

Evidence as provided in Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011, its conditions, attendant challenges

of authenticity, integrity and reliability; with the current implications the admissibility of this form

of evidence have on the Hearsay Rule. This work addresses the problem or challenges bordering

on the admissibility of Electronically Generated Evidence such those aforementioned.

This was achieved via the methodology employed in this work, which involves an examination of

the relevant provisions of the Evidence Laws, Freedom of Information Act, 2011, The Constitution

of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as Amended), judicial authorities, Charters,

Conventions, Dictionaries, Textbooks, Interviews, and Materials sourced from the Internet. The

resulting effect been the following:

The work is divided into five chapters with each chapter geared towards proffering a result for the

admissibility of electronically generated evidence and the effect of its current implication on the

hearsay rule.

Chapter One covers the general introduction of study and embodies the objectives of study, the

statement of the problem, significance of the study, its scope and research methodology.

Chapter Two covers literature review on the subject. This extends to review of texts, journals,

articles, interviews etc.

xvii
In Chapter Three, the admissibility of the electronically generated evidence under the Evidence

Act, 2011 along with its challenges are canvassed.

Chapter Four examines the current implications electronically generated evidence has for the Commented [OTA1]:

hearsay rule.

In Chapter Five, a conclusion is drawn, summary of findings given and a number of

recommendations are made to place the Nigerian legal system on the same footing with other

jurisdictions.

Conclusively, the implication of this thesis is that the admissibility of electronically generated

evidence renders hearsay evidence (direct oral evidence) admissible against the backdrop that

hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

xviii