Members of the House of Representatives on Thursday expressed support for the passage of a bill which seeks to make a certified public document admissible by a Superior Court in Nigeria.
The bill, as sponsored by Edward Pwajok (APC-Plateau), seeks to amend sections 14, 84 and 104 of the Evidence (Principal) Act, 2011 which seeks to render illegally obtained evidence inadmissible.
It also seeks to give discretion to the Court with regards to certification of electronically generated documents and provide for admissibility of public documents without calling the makers of such documents being called as witnesses during trial.
In his lead debate on the bill, Pwajok explained that sections 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act exemplify the core ‘exclusionary rules’ of evidence. Section 14 of the principal Act renders admissible improperly obtained evidence ‘unless the Court is of the opinion that the desirability of admitting the evidence is out-weighed by the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the manner in which the evidence was obtained.
“The factors that a Court may use to determine whether to admit improperly obtained evidence are provided by section 15 of the Principal Act,” he observed.
The Plateau lawmaker who doubles as Chairman, House Committee on Human Rights further noted that section 84 of the Principal Act seeks to vest the Court with discretion to determine forms of certification of electronically generated documents produced by persons who use computer to generate such documents.
“Section 104 of the Principal Act seeks to dispense with the attendance of makers of public documents at proceedings where such documents are tendered in evidence,” he stressed, while soliciting for the support for the passage of the bill through second reading.
According to him, the proposed amendment seeks to make illegally obtained evidence inadmissible; make express provision dispensing with attendance of makers of documents in Court as a condition for admissibility and expressly prohibit certification of public documents through engraving of names/signature in a rubber stamp.
Citing relevant laws from other jurisdiction on the admissibility of computer print outs, Pwajok argued that “such discretion in section 5 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 of the UK, which permits the admissibility of computer generated evidence by ‘production of the document, or material part thereof, authenticated in such manner as the Court may approve.’ Controversies have arisen as to the Court to determine appropriate certification
“There have been controversies as to whether or not a duky certifies public document requires attendance of the maker before it is admissible. The current judicial authorities particularly in electoral cases that certified true copies of results sought to be tendered by any party are not proper if the party seeking to tender such is not the maker of the document.
“In this case, one wonders whether the Court wants a party to call all presiding officers as witnesses just in a bid to tender the result of an election. In a presidential election, is it possible to call all presiding officers in all the polling units in the country?
“The crux of section 104 is once a public document is certified and signed as required by the section, such document is admissible in it’s mere production and it is necessary to prove custody or verify it. It is necessary to call the public officer who certified it and it may even be tendered from the Bar,” Pwajok who is the only Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) in the National Assembly explained.
While ruling, Speaker Yakubu Dogara referred the bill to the Committee on Judiciary for further legislative action.
KEHINDE AKINTOLA, Abuja
