Court to Rule on Admissibility of Digital Evidence in Emefiele’s Trial

Wale Igbintade

Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja will today deliver a ruling on the admissibility of key digital evidence in the ongoing fraud trial of a former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Godwin Emefiele.

Emefiele and his co-defendant, Henry Omoile, are facing a 19-count charge of alleged fraud filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The ruling follows intense arguments between the prosecution and defence over the authenticity and certification of documents extracted from a former Executive Assistant to the CBN Governor.

EFCC counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, had earlier presented the testimony of operative Alvan Gurumnaan, who detailed a digital trail uncovered during the agency’s investigation.

According to Gurumnaan, the evidence includes WhatsApp chats between key individuals allegedly involved in the case.

He explained that the acronym “PCS” found in the messages stands for “piece,” a code representing N1,000.

Further analysis of the phone of John Adetola, a former Executive Assistant, allegedly revealed conversations with Eric Eboh instructing the delivery of $400,000 “for Oga.”

The EFCC witness claimed Adetola confirmed receiving and delivering the money, while efforts to trace Eboh are ongoing.

While some documents dated February 2024 were admitted without objection, a subsequent bundle of digital materials from Adetola’s phone faced stiff resistance from the defence.

Defence counsel Olalekan Ojo, SAN, and Kazeem Gbadamosi, SAN, argued that the documents lacked proper certification under the Evidence Act and therefore should not be admitted.

Oyedepo sought to tender the documents through Gurumnaan (PW8), who testified that the documents were the product of an EFCC investigation, allegedly showing multiple cash deliveries to Emefiele and his associates.

But Ojo objected, noting that the documents contained alterations not reflected in the original computer printout.

He insisted the documents did not comply with Section 84 of the Evidence Act, which governs the admissibility of electronic evidence.

“An altered or mutilated document has no life in it and should be rejected by the court,” Ojo submitted.

He also argued that the prosecution failed to meet the authentication requirements for tendering computer-generated evidence.

In response, Oyedepo urged the court to admit the documents, maintaining that they are public documents that require no further certification, citing a Supreme Court precedent.

Before adjourning, Justice Oshodi advised parties to agree on modalities for the forensic examination of the phone and WhatsApp messages at the next sitting.