Admissibility Of Computer Generated Evidence In Nigeria

I. Introduction

The use of technology in our daily lives has grown exponentially, and as a result, more and more evidence is being generated by computers and other electronic devices. However, the admissibility of this type of evidence in court is a complex and often controversial issue. This article will focus on the admissibility of computer-generated evidence in Nigeria, a topic that has become increasingly important in recent years. As technology continues to evolve, it is essential for the legal system to keep pace with these changes and ensure that evidence generated by computers is treated fairly and objectively in court.

In Nigeria, the admissibility of computer-generated evidence is governed by a complex web of laws and regulations, including the Evidence Act 2011, the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015. This article will provide a brief overview of the legal framework governing the admissibility of computer-generated evidence in Nigeria, and explore some of the challenges faced in this area.

II. What is computer-generated evidence?

Computer-generated evidence refers to any evidence that is created, stored, transmitted, or received through the use of a computer or other electronic device. This type of evidence is becoming increasingly common in legal proceedings, and it includes a wide range of forms, such as:

Emails and other electronic messages
Social media posts and comments
Audio and video recordings
Digital photographs and images
Databases and spreadsheets
Computer logs and metadata

It is important to note that computer-generated evidence may be either direct or circumstantial, and its admissibility in court depends on a number of factors, such as the authenticity, reliability, and relevance of the evidence.

To better understand the concept of computer-generated evidence, let’s take a closer look at some of the various forms of this type of evidence.

III. Legal framework governing admissibility of computer-generated evidence in Nigeria

The admissibility of computer-generated evidence in Nigerian courts is governed by various laws and regulations. In this section, we will discuss these laws and regulations, as well as the provisions relating to computer-generated evidence.

Laws and regulations governing admissibility of evidence in Nigeria

The Evidence Act of 2011 is the primary law governing the admissibility of evidence in Nigerian courts. Other laws and regulations that impact the admissibility of evidence in Nigeria include the Criminal Procedure Act, the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, and the Nigerian Communications Act.

Provisions relating to computer-generated evidence

Under the Evidence Act of 2011, computer-generated evidence is admissible if it satisfies certain conditions. Section 84 of the Act provides that computer-generated evidence is admissible if it is produced by a computer during a period when it was used regularly to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period.

Furthermore, the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act contains provisions that relate specifically to the admissibility of electronic evidence. Section 84 of the Act provides that electronic evidence is admissible in court if it is relevant, and if the accuracy of the electronic evidence can be proven.

In summary, the legal framework governing the admissibility of computer-generated evidence in Nigeria is well-defined, and the provisions relating to computer-generated evidence are clear. However, challenges still exist in the practical application of these laws and regulations, which we will discuss in the next section.

IV. Challenges to the admissibility of computer-generated evidence in Nigeria

Despite the increasing use of computer-generated evidence in legal proceedings, there are still challenges to its admissibility in Nigerian courts. In this section, we will discuss some of these challenges and objections:

a. Technical Challenges

One of the major challenges to the admissibility of computer-generated evidence is technical issues such as tampering, manipulation, or alteration of the evidence. Opposing parties may argue that the evidence was modified or manipulated, which can lead to doubts about its authenticity and reliability.

b. Legal Challenges

Another challenge is the legal framework governing the admissibility of computer-generated evidence. The Nigerian Evidence Act, which governs the admissibility of evidence in Nigerian courts, was enacted in 2011 and does not explicitly address the admissibility of computer-generated evidence. This can lead to uncertainty and disagreements over whether such evidence should be admissible or not.

c. Authentication Challenges

Authentication of computer-generated evidence can also be challenging, especially when the evidence is obtained from social media or other online platforms. Opposing parties may argue that the evidence is not genuine or has been fabricated, leading to questions about its authenticity.

d. Admissibility Challenges

Finally, there may be challenges related to the admissibility of computer-generated evidence. For example, some judges may be hesitant to admit such evidence due to concerns about the accuracy or reliability of the technology used to generate it. This can lead to delays and increased costs in legal proceedings.

In addition to these challenges, opposing parties may raise objections to the admissibility of computer-generated evidence on other grounds, such as relevance, hearsay, or undue prejudice.

Overall, the challenges to the admissibility of computer-generated evidence in Nigeria underscore the need for clear legal guidelines and procedures for the use of such evidence in legal proceedings.

V. The Role of the Court in Determining the Admissibility of Computer-Generated Evidence

In Nigeria, courts play a critical role in determining the admissibility of computer-generated evidence. The following are the criteria that courts use to evaluate the admissibility of such evidence:

Compliance with Section 84 of the Evidence Act

The Evidence Act of 2011 provides clear guidelines for the admissibility of computer-generated evidence in Nigeria. To be admissible, a statement contained in a document produced by a computer must satisfy the conditions set out in Section 84(2) of the Act. These conditions include:

The document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not by anybody, whether corporate or not, or by any individual;
Over that period, there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived;
Throughout the material part of that period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and
The information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.

Evaluation of the Reliability and Authenticity of Computer-Generated Evidence

Even if computer-generated evidence satisfies the conditions set out in Section 84(2) of the Evidence Act, courts must still evaluate its reliability and authenticity. The following are some of the factors that courts consider when making such evaluations:

The source of the information: Courts will consider the source of the information that was used to generate the computer-generated evidence. If the information comes from a reliable source, such as a government agency or a reputable private organization, the evidence is more likely to be considered reliable.
The process of generating the evidence: Courts will evaluate the process by which the computer-generated evidence was created. If the process was transparent and followed standard procedures, the evidence is more likely to be considered reliable.
The accuracy of the evidence: Courts will also evaluate the accuracy of the computer-generated evidence. If there are any errors or inconsistencies in the evidence, it may be deemed unreliable and inadmissible.

Final thoughts

In conclusion, the admissibility of computer-generated evidence in Nigeria is determined by strict guidelines set out in the Evidence Act of 2011. To be admissible, such evidence must satisfy the conditions set out in Section 84(2) of the Act. Even if the evidence satisfies these conditions, courts will still evaluate its reliability and authenticity by considering factors such as the source of the information, the process

VI. Conclusion

In conclusion, the admissibility of computer-generated evidence is an important aspect of the Nigerian legal system. In this article, we have seen that there are various forms of computer-generated evidence and that there is a legal framework governing its admissibility in Nigeria. However, challenges to the admissibility of computer-generated evidence still exist, such as concerns about the authenticity and reliability of such evidence.

To improve the admissibility of computer-generated evidence in Nigeria, it is suggested that there should be more education and training on the use and admissibility of such evidence among legal practitioners and judges. Additionally, there could be amendments to the existing laws and regulations governing evidence to make them more technology-friendly and to provide clear guidelines on the admissibility of computer-generated evidence.

In conclusion, the admissibility of computer-generated evidence is a constantly evolving area of law, and it is important that the Nigerian legal system keeps up with the pace of technological advancements to ensure that justice is served fairly and efficiently.

Admissibility Of Computer Generated Evidence In Nigeria.