SYNAGOGUE CHURCH: JUDGE TO RULE ON ADMISSIBILITY OF VIDEO CLIPS

The judge adjourned the ruling to Tuesday at 10: AM following heated arguments after Director of Public Prosecution, Mrs. Idowu Alakija opened her arguments with documents she had tendered before the court, including video CD of recordings of an aircraft hovering round the site of the collapsed building.

She apparently worsened the matter when she sought clarifications from the witness, former Commissioner for Physical Planning and Urban Development, Mr. Olutoyin Adedamola Ayinde, if the video CD is the video handed over to him by General Overseer of the SCOAN, Pastor Temitope Joshua when he visited synagogue in company of the former Governor of Lagos State, Mr. Babatunde Fashola.

Responding, Ayinde told the DPP that he can only say if the CD the DPP sought to tender was the one he watched only after seeing the content. The DPP however requested that the CD be played.

It was at this junction that the Defense team lead by two eminent Senior Advocates of Nigeria, (SAN), Chief Efe Akpofure and Mrs. Titilola Akinlawon and learned colleague Olamilekan Ojo raised objection.

One after the other, the SANS and the other lawyer marshaled out points why the document is not admissible in law.

Chief Akpofure(SAN) latched in on the point of the witness, noting that labels on the documents are not relevant to the video clip in contention.
According to him, the grant of certified true copy of Physical Planning Permit has nothing to with the video the witness was talking about.

He averred that the documents are not original but copy of original which he argued negates the true spirit of the Evidence Act 84:4 because they are computer generated and that whatever the witness has said relating to the workability of the computer is nothing but heresay.

He sighted COBOL VS Dickson 2013, Nigeria Weekly Law Report page 1345, page 534, Apendix 577 – 578 paragraph C to E.

According to him, having not seen the content of the video clips, he will not be able to ascertain the relevance or otherwise.
He argued further that only the maker of the document that can tender it and that Ayinde is not the appropriate person to tender the document and therefore not admissible.

He added that it is only SCOAN who made the video that can authenticate it being the maker and producer and therefore the only person to compare a copy with the original. Akinlawon also argued in the same vein with his fellow SAN.

In his argument, Ojo argued that a person having a copy cannot purport to certify original from his own copy adding that it remains an incurable defect.
He referred to the case between INEC VS AC 2008 in WNLR wherein the complainant tendered a video clip recorded from NTA without authentication from the outfit. According to him, Justice Ayo Salami ruled that it remains secondary evidence.

At this point the DPP again called for the CD to be played, but the defense team again countered, noting that it is of no use, quoting Torti VS Ukpabi. Ojo argued that relevance is just a statement but that admissibility remains the litmus test. His Lordship, Justice Lawal Akapo adjourned the matter to Tuesday, 28, 2016 at 10 am.