Admin l Friday, February 18, 2022
LAGOS, Nigeria – Faulty video evidence presented in the trial of Nollywood actor, Mr. James Olanrewaju alias Baba Ijesha in his alleged sexual assault were all he needed to keep hope alive as argument arose, putting the authenticity of the video evidence in doubt at the Domestic and Sexual Offences Court on Thursday.
A defence witness and expert ìn CCTV installation and maintenance, Engr. Adeleke Lawrence made allusion to this while being led ìn evidence by Babatunde Ogala (SAN) in the on-going trial of the Nollywood actor.
Baba Ijesha is facing a six count charge of child defilement bordering on allegations of indecent treatment of a child, sexual assault, attempted sexual assault by penetration and sexual assault before Justice Oluwatoyin Taiwo.
Four video recordings of Baba Ijesha were played during resumed proceedings on Thursday, following the request of Ogala.
One showed Baba Ijesha and the 14-year old in the home of her foster mother, comedienne, Damilola Adekoya alias Princess recorded in April 2021 before his arrest. Both of them were seated on a couch for a while before walking out. When they returned, Baba Ijesha offers her a cup to drink , gave her a soft kiss in her hand and pulls her closer. They spoke in the video but their voices were not audible.
Another showed the defendant sitting on a couch with the survivor, showed two men and a woman walking out but had no audio. Another video showed the defendant sitting on the floor and begging the complainant , comedienne Adekola Adekanoye a.k.a Princess.
Asked of his opinion on what he saw, the witness said: “the gentleman and the lady appeared to be acting the way they were asked to do”. According to him, to transfer recordings from a CCTV, the witness said there must bẹ a hard drive and a computer.
“To transfer from hard drive, it must pass through a computer. In the process of passing through a computer, an error might occur along thẹ line, it might lead to editing.
“The one I watched passed through a process of editing. It did not pass through a hard drive. May bẹ along the line, it was tampered with. I am very sure that what we watched may have been tampered with based on the way it was fast forwarded”, he said.
Engr. Adeleke explained that voices heard on the recording after it was forwarded were not from the ‘actors’ ìn the film but voice-over from those handling the recording.
Asked to explain the word ‘ins’ seen at end of a shot, he described it as ‘In shot’, an application used in editing video. He said it appeared on the recording because the application was used to edit the video.
He said the device used to record is either a camcorder or phone and not CCTV. He explained that it was not CCTV because of picture quality, that CCTV cannot bẹ angle 90 but must bẹ convex or concave.
However under cross examination,, the witness agreed with the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Dr Jide Martins that the content of a CCTV recordings cannot be tampered with when used together with devices like Network Video Recording (NVR) and Internet Protocol (IP).
Engr Adeleke agreed with the prosecution that when the devices are preset ìn the CCTV, the content cannot be tampered with or manipulated. He agreed that the devices would make the recordings to look clearer, flow smoothly and camera picture sharp.
The defence witness also agreed with the prosecution that the content of the video recordings would not change no matter the colour. Engr Adeleke however said he does not know what a B-Cam, a second camera used in seeing other angle of a recording, is.
He also agreed with the prosecution that a CCTV made up of a camera, DVR made of fibre, monitor and hard drive cannot be manipulated. Asked if what a person said in the recordings would change, the defence witness said it might reduce in voice quality but not content. Justice Taiwo adjourned the matter to March 4.
