"Being computer generated evidence, the next crucial hurdle was whether the said record, Exhibit P7 , complied with the further provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011. Exhibit P7 may not be hearsay but it must comply with the provisions of Section 84.
The pre-conditions for admissibility of electronically generated evidence is provided for in Section 84. In challenging the credibility of Exhibit P7, the Appellant has contended that the Respondent failed to tender a certificate of trustworthiness of the computer used in printing the documents in compliance with Section 84(2) and (4).
Section 84 provides: (1) In any proceedings, a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions in Subsection (2) of this Section are satisfied in relation to the statement and the computer in question.
(2) The conditions referred to in Subsection (1) of this Section are
(a) that 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;
(b) that 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;
(c) that 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
(d) that the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.
(3) Where over a period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, as mentioned in Subsection (2) of this Section was regularly performed by computers, whether (a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or (b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or (c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or (d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate a. identifying the document containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; or b. giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that document as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the document was produced by a computer; or c. dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in Subsection (2) above relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities, as the case may be, shall be evidence of the matter stated in the certificate, and for the purpose of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
(5) For the purposes of this section a. information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied to it in any appropriate form and whether it is supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; b. where, in the course of activities carried on by any individual or body, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities; c. a document shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment.
The provisions of Section 84 which state conditions for admitting in evidence any electronically generated document, are central in determining the admissibility of a document emanating from a computer. The main objective of these provisions is to authenticate and validate the reliability of the computer which generated the evidence sought to be tendered. It was necessary to prove that a computer was operating properly and was not used improperly before any statement in a document produced by the computer could be admitted in evidence. Evidence in relation to the use of the computer must therefore be called to establish compliance with the conditions set out in Section 84(2).In Kubor v Dickson (2012) LPELR-9817(SC), the Supreme Court, per Onnoghen, JSC, affirmed that computer-generated evidence or documents which did not comply with the pre-conditions laid down in Section 84(2) were inadmissible. My views expressed in Sylva & Anor v INEC & Ors (Unreported) Appeal No: CA/A/EPT/281/2016 delivered on June 24, 2016, which was affirmed by the Apex Court in Dickson v Sylva & Ors (2016) LPELR-41257(SC) at page 15 of the E-Report, remain relevant, as follows:
"In this digital age when different creations can be achieved electronically, the reason for the requirement of authentication or certification of the gadget or computer used in producing and processing the electronically generated documents is not farfetched. The party seeking to rely on such evidence must be able to show that the data and information contained in the electronically generated document is truly what it claims to be. The pre-conditions for admissibility set down by Section 84 are to establish this fact.
The relationship between the computer and the information is crucial. The electronic evidence must be produced from a computer or gadget that is inherently reliable and has been in operation over the relevant period. There is no doubt that with present and even future technological advances, the pre-conditions attached to admissibility of electronically generated evidence by Section 84 may no longer be sufficient to authenticate the reliability of electronic evidence. However, these challenges are not in issue herein. One constant is that a computer or gadget will only reproduce what has been fed into it. The computer or gadget will demonstrate or play what it receives. This is the reason why there is no further need for certification of the computer or gadget to be used to demonstrate or to play an already properly admitted electronically generated evidence, which had complied with the pre-conditions of Section 84."
Per OTISI, J.C.A. IN JUBRIL v. FRN CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43993(CA)
