Volume 7, Issue 1, 2024

ARTICLE

ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONICALLY GENERATED

EVIDENCE IN NIGERIA: HISTORY, CHALLENGES,
AND PROSPECTS

Y.F. Oluwajobi 

Emmanuel Ayokanmi Fatimehin 

Abstract
The admissibility of electronic evidence in Nigerian courts is fairly new
and came with attendant challenges and prospects. The challenges are
probably due to the total exclusion of its admissibility by the Evidence
Act prior to 2011 and misunderstanding of the import of the rules. In
2011, the new Evidence Act was enacted and enabled the admissibility
of electronically generated evidence. This study reviewed the history,
challenges and the prospects of admissibility of electronic evidence in
Nigerian courts. The study adopted doctrinal legal research approach
with primary and secondary sources of law such as statutory authorities
including the Evidence Act 2011.The study found out that the Evidence
Act failed to address the vulnerability of electronic records and other
challenges of modern technological usages. In addition, the study also
discovered that while the Evidence Act had addressed some of the
pertinent issues on admissibility of electronic evidence, there are still
many unresolved issues on electronic evidence. The study concluded by
recommending that there are needs for reforms of the laws governing
electronic evidence in order to meet international best practices.

Keywords: Admissibility, Electronic Evidence, Evidence Act, History, Challenges.


M. Phil, LL.M, B.L, LL.B (Ife), Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Redeemer’s University, Akoda-Ede, Email:
[email protected], Telephone: +234 7035155587

LL.B, ACArb, Email: [email protected] , Telephone: +234 8162126549, +234 9058679239
1.0. Introduction
Technological advancements brought radical shift in daily living and businesses transactions
globally. It moved many business transactions from paper-based operations to computer-based
platforms, creating a system of human dependence on technology. Pieces of information can be
accessed faster electronically in form of software, and in addition, the traditional method of using
the post office for sending and receiving messages became less popular as more people embrace
the methods of sending and receiving messages through electronic mailing systems and other
digitalized or computerized measures. Information and data became the most important assets in
any society, and such information(s) has become readily available electronically with more data
being stored digitally. In essence, data has become the new gold.

Technology had eased data retrieval and improved communications all over the world1.
Technology had also penetrated the judicial systems and redefined the way evidence(s) are
obtained, it changed ways of investigating crimes, gradually altering the legal climes all over the
world. Changes occasioned by the advent of technology are evident around the globe.
Consequently, various legislatures altered their laws to include use of electronic evidence which
formed part of the facts in dispute between litigants as evidence in legal proceedings. For instance,
in 2000 India amended its Evidence Act 1892 to allow electronic evidence in legal proceedings.2

In Nigeria, rise in the use of information technology in commercial and financial transactions3 led
to electronically generated documents being tendered in court as evidence. However, due to the
nature of the repealed Evidence Act 2004,4 it was difficult for litigants to rely on electronically
generated documents in trial as the law did not in its strict sense permit its admissibility. This led
to contradictions in the decisions of the court whereby sometimes documents of this nature were
admitted and sometimes rejected by the courts. The Apex Court once held obiter that the law

1
Guz Gultan, Electronic Evidence, Privacy Concerns Relating to the Collection of Electronic Evidence: Under
Turkish Legal System and Cybercrime Convention (Master Thesis, University of Oslo).
2
The inclusion of section 65B in the Indian Evidence Act, 1892 permitted for the use of electronically generated
evidence in legal proceedings in India. However, before the inclusion of section 65B in the Indian Evidence Act, the
courts had found a solution to admit electronically in legal proceedings as secondary evidence. Thus, with the
inclusion of the section electronic evidence is now considered is a primary evidence or best evidence in India.
3
Charles C.A, “An Examination of the Concept of Electronic Funds Transfer System in Electronic Banking and the
Law” cited by Muhammed A. D. and Tijjani M. B. “Appraisal of the e Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in
Nigeria and the Possibility of Its Application Under Sharia”
https://www.academia.edu/37209893/Appraisal_of_the_Admissibilty_of
_Electronic_of_Possibility_of_its_Application_Under_Sharia. Accessed 11/04/2024
4
Cap E14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004.

2
cannot shut its eyes to the mode of modern business transactions and that it will be in everyone’s
best interest if the law is amended to permit the use of electronic evidence in the court.5

While the repealed Evidence Act 2004 was still subsisting, the admissibility of electronic evidence
became more like a matter involving critical thinking before the court6. While some Judges
preferred to apply the law as it was, others favoured interpretations that will permit the use of such
evidence in court in the interests of justice. The courts then began to take judicial notice of
electronically generated evidence as they saw its use in trial as an avenue of keeping up with
modern-day commercial transactions.7 However, in the case of Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Fani
Kayode,8 the trial court did not admit computer printout as evidence, and neither did it take judicial
notice of it even though it was relevant to the fact in issue. The appellate court in hearing the appeal
permitted the use of the printout as it was duly certified and relevant to the fact in issue.9

These conflicting court decisions surrounding the admissibility of electronically generated

evidence under the Evidence Act 2004 seemed to be put to bed when the Evidence Act 2011 was
enacted. Section 84 of the new Evidence Act permits the use of electronically generated evidence
in Nigerian courts. On 12th June, 2023, an Amendment Act on evidence was signed into law.10
Amongst other things included in the amendment are the admissibility of electronic records and
computer simulations, authentication of electronic records, use and proof of digital signature,
electronic oath taking, electronic gazette and, also gives the Minister of Justice the power to make
regulations governing admissibility when there appears to be a lacuna in the law.11 However, the
Act is not devoid of its own challenges because of difficulties of the complexities of its
admissibility in trial.

5
Esso West Africa Inc. v. T. Oyegbola (1969) NMLR 19.
6
S.T. Hons, Law of Evidence in Nigeria (2012) Pearl Publishers, 2nd edn, 468.
7
Ogolo v. IMB (Nig) Ltd [1995] 9 N.W.L.R (Pt. 419) p. 314.
8
[2010] 14 NWLR (pt.1214) 487, Hons noted that the way the law on electronic evidence is being interpreted do not
align with practices in Indian and United Kingdom legal systems where most of the provisions on electronic
evidence were copied from. He held that “It is not part of the practice in India and England that spurious objections
be raised on admissibility of commonplace, ordinary documents printed out of the computer, as is being done daily
in Nigerian courts today.”
9
In that case, the trial court did not admit a document that could have led to the conviction of the defendant. Thus,
in order to prevent maladministration of justice, the appellate court upturned the decision of the trial court.
10
Evidence (Amendment) Act, 2023.
11
Ibid, Sections 2, 3 & 9.

3
2.0. Conceptual Analysis
2.1. Facts and Facts in Issue

A fact is an aspect of reality that includes tangibles and intangibles, actual occurrences, and the
state of mind of human beings such as their intentions and opinions.12 In other words, a fact can be
said to be the mere existence of a thing. 13 It is anything that can be perceived by the senses and
involves any conscious state of mind.14 Courts decide on facts that had been sufficiently proven
and every other fact is either unproved or disproved before the court. It is unproved15 when it has
neither been proved nor disproved and it is disproved when the court does not believe in the
existence of such a fact. On the other hand, a fact is in issue when it forms part of the cause of
action between litigants, which the court is expected to pronounce upon. 16 It is a fact that is by
itself in connection with other facts in legal action.17 It is the fact that has neither been proved nor
disproved and is in dispute between parties to a legal suit.

2.2. Admissibility and Relevance

The terms may appear to be twin concept; however, they constitute different meanings. While
relevancy is a source of reasoning, admissibility is a question of law. 18 The reason they appear to
be a twin concept is not far-fetched as what is admissible must also be relevant. Admissibility
determines whether a piece of evidence can be admitted in trial or not19 and the admissibility of
evidence will depend on its relevancy. In any proceeding, only that which is admissible by law can
be admitted in court. Thus, the exclusionary rules set out under section 1 of the Evidence Act will
apply at any point in time the issue of admissibility comes up in court.20 The Supreme Court tried

12
B.A. Garner (ed), Black’s Law Dictionary, (11 th edn, Thompson Reuters 2019) 735.
13
Opeoluwa Sanni, Fact in Issue, Nigerian Law of Evidence, dJet Lawyer, https://djetlawyer.com/facts-in-issue/
<accessed 10th November, 2022>.
14
Section 258, Evidence Act, 2011.
15
Only unproved facts constitute a fact in dispute for every other fact has either been sufficiently proved or
sufficiently disproved before the court. Thus, in other words, disproved or proved facts do not constitute facts in
dispute.
16
Alaba Omolaiye-Ajileye, Electronic Evidence, (Rev. Edn, Jurist Publications Series 2019) 12.
17
Nwobodo v. Onoh (1984) 1 S.C. 1.
18
Fidelis Nwadialo, Modern Law of Evidence, (4th edn, University of Lagos Press 1999) 73.
19
Faramoye v. The State (2017) LPELR-42031 (SC).
20
Under the exclusionary rules set out in section 1 of the Evidence Act 2011, any piece of evidence that is not
admissible in law is simply inadmissible and were such has been admitted, the appellate court is charged to expunge
such evidence upon the notice of such. This can be done even where the evidence has been admitted on the consent
of the parties or without objection as held by the court in Agagu v. Mimiko (2009) ALL FWLR (pt. 462) 1122.

4
to simplify the criteria for admissibility when it states that a document shall only be admissible
when: it has been pleaded; it is relevant to the fact in issue; and it is admissible by law.21

The term relevance refers to whether a piece of evidence based on human reasoning and from the
likelihood of facts before the court is more probable to be true than not. Counsels in civil and
criminal proceedings must show that what he or she is asserting is crucial to the proceedings before
it can be admitted by the court as evidence in trial. He may establish that one fact is relevant to
another if a connection can be drawn between both facts by the law.22

The other side of the argument is that not all relevant evidence is admissible. A good example is
an electronically generated document sought to be used in court as evidence without authentication
or oral evidence of the maker in court. Such evidence may be relevant in the proceedings but may
not be admissible by the court. Finally, where a court had admitted a document that is not relevant
but wrongfully admitted, it is saddled with the responsibility of expunging or disregarding such.
Where that is not done23, the appellate court is also entitled by law to expunge such document24.
This is by the rules guiding wrongful admission and rejection of evidence.25

2.3. Evidence

Evidence is the pivot of a court proceeding; it is the basis on which cases are determined in any
proceeding. It is the means through which litigants win or lose cases in court.26 Evidence is what
is used by litigants in court to prove an alleged fact,27 in Tukur v UBA & Ors28 the Supreme Court
defines evidence to include the “means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is
submitted to investigation, is established or approved”. The law of evidence determines what is
and what is not admissible as evidence in trials whether in proving or disproving a fact in issue

21
Udoro v. Governor of Akwa Ibom State (2016) 11 NWLR (pt. 1205) 322 at 328.
22
Faramoye v. The State, supra n 19.
23
R v Ellis, [1910] 2 K.B 746, Stirland v DPP [1944] AC 315
24
Omidokun Owoniyi v Omotosho [1961] 1 ALL NLR 304, (1962) WNLR 1; Aminu v Hassan (2014) 5 NWLR (pt.
1400) 287
25
Section 251 (1) Evidence Act, 2011.
26
Chris C. Wigwe, Introduction to Law of Evidence in Nigeria, (Mounterest University Press, 2016) 1.
27
Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary, (9 th Edn, Oxford University Press 2015) 527.
28
(2012) LPELR - 9337 (SC).

5
and in what manner a matter can be admitted by the court as evidence.29 Section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act30 defines it as:

1) All statements that the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses
about the matter about witnesses about the matters of fact under inquiry. Such
statements are called oral evidence;
2) All documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the
Court, such documents are called documentary evidence.
The Indian courts take cognizance of two forms of evidence i.e., oral and documentary evidence.
In contrast, the Nigerian law of evidence31 recognizes three forms of evidence to wit: oral,
documentary and real.32 The word evidence used in a judicial context tend to take different
meanings,33 for instance, it may mean the process by which the court is notified of the issues from
the pleadings and the crux of such process. It is that which was placed before the courts to regulate
relevant facts in issues.34

Evidence can be said to be that which is brought before the court to prove or disprove a fact in
issue, either orally, documentarily, or by way of real evidence. Sometimes, even if relevant,
evidence can be required by law or the court to be supported with other evidence before it can be
admitted in court. An example of such evidence is electronic evidence which requires a method of
authentication and oral evidence from the maker of such document before it can be admitted.

2.4 Electronic Evidence

Electronic evidence has been defined as “information of probative value that is stored or
transmitted in binary form”35 and “information stored or transmitted in binary form that may be
relied on in court”.36 It includes evidence generated from computers, cameras, the internet, the dark

29
Simon Cooper et al, Cases and Materials on Evidence, (4 th Edn, Blackstone Press Limited 1997) 1.
30
1872 as amended (whose model The Nigerian Evidence Act 2011 follows).
31
Evidence Act, 2011.
32
Oral evidence is the evidence given by mouth in court usually by a witness; Documentary evidence as the name
implies refers to all documents including electronic records produced in court for inspection (s.3.Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 as amended); while real evidence includes anything other than documentary or oral evidence brought to
court for the purpose of proofing or disproving a relevant fact in issue S258, Evidence Act, 2011).
33
Phipson, Evidence, (13th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 1982) 2.
34
Ibid.
35
Scientific Working Groups on Digital Evidence and Imaging Technology, ‘Best Practices for Digital Evidence
Laboratory Programs Glossary: version 2.7’
36
International Organization on Computer Evidence, G8 proposed principles for the procedures relating to digital
evidence (IOCE 2000). This definition has been adopted by the US Department of Justice Office of Justice
Programs, National Institute of Justice, in Electronic Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for First Responders (US

6
web, closed-circuit television (CCTV) and so on. In the description, it comprises of three (3)
elements namely, all forms of data, devices for storing and “information that has potential to make
factual account of either party more probable or less probable that it would be without evidence”.37

Although the Evidence Act failed to define the term electronically generated evidence, it did refer
to what constitutes electronic evidence.38 For instance, section 84 refers to “statements contained
in a document from a computer”, while the interpretation section defines a computer to mean any
device for storing and processing information.39 In summary, electronic evidence can be taken to
be any raw fact stored in a device of electronic manner which can be presented before the court as
evidence to disprove or prove a relevant fact in issue. However, there are elements distinguishing
electronic evidence from any other evidence and they are:

a. Electronic signature or digital signature: this refers to all data in electronic form attached to
other electronic data or logically linked to the data which is used to show authentication and
the integrity of the document.40 It is an efficient method of getting electronic documents signed
quickly and its legality is enshrined in the various laws around the world.41In the United States,
an electronic signature is seen as a
computer data compilation of any symbol or series of symbols executed, adopted,
or authorized by an individual to be the legally binding equivalent of the individual’s
handwritten signature.42
Section 2 of the United Nations Commission on International Law (UNICITRAL) Model Law
defines it as data in electronic form, affixed to or logically associated with, a data message, which
may be used to identify the signatory in relation to the data message and indicate the signatory’s
approval of the information contained in the data message. Digital signature on the other hand is

Department of Justice 2001) and Forensic examination of digital evidence: A guide for law enforcement (US
Department of Justice 2004).
37
Schafer and Mason, ‘The Characteristic of Electronic Evidence’ in Mason and Seng (eds), Electronic Evidence
(4th edn University of London, 2017) 19.
38
Alaba Omolaiye-Ajileye, (n. 12) 76.
39
Ibid. 76.
40
Chapter 1, Article 3 (1), Albanian Law No.9880 on Electronic Signature.
41
https://www.adobe.com/sign/electronic-signatures.html
42
Part 11, Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that establishes the United States Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regulations on electronic records and electronic signatures (ERES).

7
a numerical way of giving authenticity to digital records and documents giving the recipient the
assurance that the document is from a sender known to the recipient.43

In Nigeria, electronic signature and digital signature was not defined by the law until the Evidence
Act 2023 amendment. The Amendment Act defines electronic signature as the authentication of
any electronic record via a subscriber by means of the electronic technique specified by law that
includes a digital signature.44 A digital signature is an electronic signature attached to an electronic
record to verify its authenticity and sender. Furthermore, the amendment the law provides that,

where a rule of evidence requires a signature or provides for certain consequences

if a document is not signed; an electronic signature or digital signature satisfies that
rule of law and avoids those consequences.45
The implication of the above is that legality of an electronic or digital signature is taken to be the
same as it would have been if it were a handwritten signature. This would add to the integrity of
data and bring a reduction in fraud and security issues.46 In simple terms, electronic signature and
digital signature show the authenticity and ownership of a document by linking the author to the
contents of the document. This signature may be an attached to names, watermarks, or biometrics.47

Electronic Record contains information stored in a computer system or an electronic machine.48 It

is “data record or data generated, image or sound stored, received, or sent in an electronic form or
microfilm”.49 It can also be viewed as a combination of text, data, graphics, or any other
information stored in a graphic form that may be created, modified, archived, maintained,
retrieved, or distributed by a computer system.50 In simpler terms, electronic records are
information contained in an automated device and are admissible by law without further proof or
production of the original if it satisfies the conditions for its admissibility by law.

43
Jonathan Katz and Yehuda Lindell, Introduction to Modern Cryptography, (CRC Press, 2007) 399.
44
Section 10 (Amendment of section 258 of the 2011 Principal Act), Evidence (Amendment Act) 2023.
45
Section 93(2) Evidence Act, 2011 (amended by section 4 of the amendment Act).
46
C.J. Michaels, MLIS, Electronic Records: Definition, Principles, and Applications,
<https://www.ewsolutions.com/electronic-records-definition-principles-and-applications/> accessed 7th June, 2023
47
Alaba Omolaiye-Ajileye, (n. 12) 94-98
48
Philip Ukata, Electronic Records Management and National Development: A Case of Nigeria, <
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342720651_Electronic_Records_Management_and_National_Developm
ent_A_Case_of_Nigeria#:~:text=means%20any%20information%20that%20is,a%20computer%20or%20electronic
%20machine> accessed 7th June, 2023.
49
Section 10 Evidence (Amendment) Act, 2023.
50
Part 11, Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

8
2.5 Document

A fact in issue can be established by way of a documentary evidence.51 Documentary evidence is

not easily explained.52 The term is usually traditionally ascribed to “paper that gives information
about something” 53. However, the traditional meaning constricts a document’s definition to mean
anything written on paper. Thus, by implication, that which is not written on paper is not a
document; this position does not reflect the real import of a document.54 Therefore, a document
can be said to be anything written and capable of being used in court as evidence.55 Such document
must contain two elements: an inscription and an object upon which such inscription is made.
Thus, it is “impracticable to base any distinction upon the material bearing the inscription” 56 as a
document does not need to be written on paper before it can be called a document.

In Nigeria, before 2011, the meaning of document was constricted by the wordings of the old
Evidence Act57 and did not include electronically generated documents. Thus, the admissibility of
documents generated electronically posed a challenge to litigants and the courts. Section 2 of the
Evidence Act 200458 defined document as:

Books, maps, plans, drawings, photographs and also includes any matter expressed or
described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than of
these means, intended to be used or which may by means of letters, figures or marks
or by more than one of these means, intended to be used or which may be for the
purpose of recording that matter.
In line with the statutory definition, the court in Nuba Commercial Ltd v. NAL Merchant Bank59
held that in the proper interpretation of the statute, computer-generated information was
inadmissible. In that case, one of the parties applied to tender bank statements stored in a computer,
and the court refused its inadmissibility as it does not lie within the ambit of the meaning of a
document under the statute. The same reasoning was adopted in Elder Okon Aaron Udoro & Ors
V. Governor of Akwa Ibom State & Ors60 where the Court of Appeal held that the wordings of

51
Schafer and Mason, (n. 29) 20.
52
Alaba Omolaiye-Ajileye, (n. 12) 99.
53
Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, (n. 20) 452.
54
R v. Daye (Arthur John) (1908) KB 333 (KBD) 340.
55
Ibid.
56
Darling J. in R v. Daye (Arthur John), Ibid.
57
Cap E14, LFN.
58
Ibid.
59
(2007) 5 EFCLR 204 at 228.
60
(2008) LCN/2990(CA).

9
section 2 of the Evidence Act, 2004 was trite and does not include a video cassette since it’s a
motion picture and not something inscribed on paper.

The provision of the Act defining document as well as the court’s interpretation of document
caused a consensus among jurists who concluded that the scope of the act defining document was
inadequate.61 The legal consensus continued among jurists coupled with agitations from the
judiciary for the legislature to widen the scope of a document continued up till 2011 when a new
Evidence Act was enacted. The Evidence Act 2011 defines a document to include:

a) Books, maps, plans, graphs, drawings, photographs, and also includes any matter
expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks
or by more than one of these means, intended to be used or which may be used for
the purpose of recording that matter;
b) Any disc, tape, sound track or other device in which sounds or other data (not being
visual images) are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some
other equipment) of being reproduced from it, and
c) Any film, negative, tape or other device in which one or more visual Images are
embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of
being reproduced from it; and
d) Any device by means of which information is recorded. Stored or retrievable
including computer output.62

The new Act enlarged the definition of a document to include electronically generated documents
and electronic devices. By implication, courts can admit an electronic device as evidence generated
from a computer in court proceedings as a document. The Supreme Court’s decision in Ports and
Cargo Handling Services Company Ltd & Ors. v. Migfo Nigeria Ltd & Anor63 where it was held
that when “includes” is used in a statute, it widens its scope. Therefore, the word “includes” used
in the section widened the scope of document to include even things not expressly stated in Act
for future purposes. Thus, plastic bottles with trademark inscribed on it have been held to be
documents.64 Electronic documents also do not fall under any class of evidence in Nigeria but
rather it is treated as evidence constituting a class of their own.

61
Pats-Acholonu JCA describes it as out of touch and tune with reality. In 2009 when a Nigeria Senator was
speaking in support of a new evidence act, describes the old law as anachronistic and not in line with global reality.
Justice Ohimai believes the old law was stale and puts Judges in a difficult position.
62
Section 258 (1) Evidence Act, 2011.
63
(2012) Lpelr – 9725 (Sc).
64
Holdent International Ltd V. Petersville Nigeria Ltd (2013) LPELR – 21474 (Ca).

10
3.0. History of Evidence in Nigeria

In the early 20th century, the judicial system in Nigeria was divided into two systems. While the
South adopted the unwritten rules of customary law, the North employed the written rules in the
Quran for practice procedure and evidence in Nigeria.65 These rules of practice and procedure have
now evolved and are being administered today by the various Customary and Sharia Courts across
the country.66 In addition, the English Law of Evidence was applied across the country by virtue
of Ordinance No. 4 of 1876 which made provision for the application of English Common Law,
Equity and Statutes of General Application passed on or before January 1st, 190067 up until 1945.

In 1943, the first Evidence Ordinance68 in Nigeria was enacted and did not come into effect until
1945. The Act was modelled after Sir James Fitzgerald Stephen’s Digest on Law of Evidence69
which attempted to codify the English Law of Evidence. The Ordinance continued to be effective
in Nigeria even after the Independence of 1960 and was thereafter referred to as an Act.

Under the 1963 Constitution of Nigeria, evidence was listed under the concurrent Legislative List.
This made evidence a concern of the Regional Houses of Assembly in the country until 1979 where
evidence was moved from the Concurrent Legislative List to the Exclusive Legislative List under
the 1979 Constitution of Nigeria.70 By implication, matters relating to evidence in court stopped
being the concern of the Regional Houses of Assembly and that of the National Assembly.71

The Ordinance was in effect up till 2011 when it was repealed by the Evidence Act 2011. Before
it was repealed, the Act was incorporated into the 199072 and 2004 Laws of the Federation of
Nigeria (LFN) and it was its adoption into the LFN 2004 that has made it known today as Evidence

65
G. Arishe and D.O Oriakhogba, The Evidence Act, 2011: Closing the Window for the Application of Common
Law Rules of Evidence.
Https://Www.Researchgate.Net/Publication/329681796_The_Evidence_Act_2011_Closing_The_Window_For_The
_Application_Of_Common_Law_Rules_Of_Evidence <Accessed On 11th November, 2022>.
66
T.A Aguda, Law and Practice Relating to Evidence in Nigeria, (2 nd Edn, Mij Professional Publishers 1998) 3.
67
Nwadialo, Modern Law of Evidence, (4th Edn, University of Lagos Press 1999) 15.
68
No. 27 of 1943.
69
It brought about the Indian Evidence Act of 1892. Thus, it is safe to say the 1945 Ordinance was modelled after
the English and Indian Evidence Acts.
70
G. Arishe and D.O Oriakhogba, (n. 46)
71
C.E. Adah, The Nigerian Law of Evidence, (Malthouse Press 2000) 3.
72
Cap 112.

11
Act73, or simply Evidence Act, 2004. The Act went through amendment in 1991 and has since then
had no major alteration until it was repealed in 2011 after its 66 years of existence.74

The lack of further amendments led to the Act becoming obsolete on matters relating to documents
generated from computers. The Act did not admit documents and other evidence generated by
computers, even when other Legislatures around the world like English and Indian Legislatures
amended their laws to include documents of electronic nature to meet up with modern
requirements, the Nigerian legislature still did nothing about the Evidence Act. The Court of
Appeal was the first notable critic of the Evidence Act. In the case of Egbue v. Araka75 where Pats-
Acholonu, J.C.A (as he then was) observed that:

It must be clearly understood that our Evidence Act is now more than 50 years old and
is completely out of touch and out of tune with the realities of the present scientific
and technological achievements. Most of its sections are archaic and anachronistic and
need thorough overhaul to meet with the needs of our times. But alas it is with us now
like an albatross on our neck...
The New Zealand Law Commission Statement quoted by the Nigerian Law Reform Commission
(NLRC) in its 1998 Report best described Nigeria’s situation. The quote says:

A serious criticism of our evidence law is that it hinders rather than search for the truth
through the creation of artificial and unnecessary constraints on evidence which may
be admitted. Instead of enhancing and facilitating the rational common-sense abilities
of the judge and jury, the law makes it difficult to formulate a complete picture of what
really happened. The focus is on the technicalities of the rules and their exceptions
rather than the broader policies lying behind them.
Senator Akinyede while sponsoring a bill for the amendment of the Evidence Act 2004 noted the
obvious necessity for a new law on evidence in Nigeria; the Evidence Act 2011 was enacted and
came into effect on 3rd June, 2011. The Act permits use of computer-generated evidence in legal
proceedings whilst resolving challenges of the old evidence Act, it gave a new meaning to
documents and increased the scope of the meaning of documents. However, the Act is not devoid
of challenges as it did not proffer definition of some specific terms relating to electronic records.
The Act did not permit the use of self-authentication when presenting electronic evidence in court,
leading to an amendment in 2023 that brought about additional revolutions in electronic evidence.

73
Cap E14 LFN 2004.
74
G. Arishe and D.O Oriakhogba, (n. 46).
75
(1969) NMLR 19.

12
For instance, it had specified definitions to key terms relating to electronic evidence, such as
electronic records, electronic signatures, and digital signatures. It provides a safer mode of
authentication of electronic evidence, electronic oath-taking, electronic gazette, and so on.
However, some of the challenges still persist and will be discussed below.

4.0. Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in Legal Proceedings in Nigeria

As discussed above, a new Act governing evidence in Nigeria came into force in 2011.76 Although
to the laymen, the enactment of a new evidence Act may not appear as jubilatory, however, among
lawyers, it was something that called for celebration as the Act addressed many of issues the old
Evidence Act77 failed to resolve. The old Act did not provide for use of electronic documents in
legal proceedings and thus could not meet up with modern requirements of admissibility in trial.
As technological advancements brought about the existence of compact discs as a means of storing
files as opposed to the old method of storing files in hardcopy in a paper document; Point of Sale
(POS) transactions instead of the old method of cash payment, the internet and other modern
technological advancements. There was a need to establish a system that will meet up with the
modern requirement of admissibility in trial and in order to address the challenges, the new Act
was enacted and it made provision for the admissibility of electronic evidence.78

The 2011 Act addressed the issue of electronic documents. This was necessary as documents of
electronic nature were quite different from the traditional documentary evidence. Due to this,
documents of electronic nature could not be tendered as evidence as the old Evidence Act did not
provide for such. Under the Act, the meaning of a document includes evidence generated from
electronic devices and so on.79

The main issue relevant to this study that the new Evidence Act resolved is the issue governing
the admissibility of electronically generated evidence in Nigeria. In addition to this, the Act was
amended in 2023 to further address issues affecting electronically generated evidence in Nigeria.
The Act permits the use of electronically generated evidence in legal proceedings so far as the

76
This Act is known as Evidence Act, 2011.
77
Cap E14, LFN 2004.
78
Alaba Omolaiye –Ajileye, (n.12) 156 – 157.
79
Section 258 (1) Evidence Act, 2011.

13
conditions and requirements stated in the amended Section 8480 have been complied with. The
conditions and other requirements dealing with authentication and relevancy will be expatiated
below.

4.1. Conditions for Admissibility of Electronically Generated Evidence in Nigeria

The conditions for admissibility are contained in Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011, from the
title of the section “admissibility of statements in documents produced by computer”, it addresses
issues relating to the use of electronic evidence in trials. The drafters of the Act appear to have
drawn inspiration for this section from Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1892 (as amended)
and the repealed Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act, 1984.

The section contains five subsections, the sub-sections permit use of electronically generated
evidence in “any proceeding”81 in Nigeria as long as the conditions stipulated in subsection two
has been fulfilled.82 The conditions as stipulated in section 84(2) of the Evidence Act are:

i) that the statement contained in the document seeking to be tendered was produced by
the computer during its regular course of usage;
ii) that the kind of statement contained in the document was supplied to the computer
during its regular course of usage;
iii) that the computer operated properly during the period of its regular use; and
iv) that statement contained in the document was supplied to the computer during its
ordinary course of usage.
In addition to the above, where over a period of time, the function of storing or processing of
information was done by a combination of different computers over a period of their regular course
of usage, all computers used for such function will be treated as single.83 The Act similarly requires
that a certificate of authentication be tendered along with the electronic evidence sought to be used
in evidence describing how the evidence was generated; show particulars of the condition of the
device used in producing the evidence and illustrates that the conditions stated out in section 84(2)

80
This section of the evidence act permits the use of electronic evidence in legal proceedings and stipulates the
conditions to be followed before they can be admitted.
81
Exceptions to this are arbitral proceedings, court martial proceedings, the sharia court of appeal and customary
court of appeal proceedings as well as area courts and customary courts proceedings. Also, by section 12(2)(b) of
the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 the court may do away with applying the rules of the evidence act for the
purpose of attaining justice.
82
Section 84(1), Evidence Act, 2011.
83
Section 84(3), Ibid.

14
was complied with. Finally, the document must be signed by a person84 who in the view of the
court is knowledgeable enough to know about the workings of a computer. Lastly, section 84(5)
stipulates that information shown to have been appropriately supplied into the computer directly
or indirectly will be taken as produced by the computer.

It is worthy of mention that all conditions stipulated in section 84 of the Act are complementary;
they must be adhered to before electronic evidence can be admitted. In addition, before the
conditions can be said to have been satisfied before the court, the necessary foundation showing
the authenticity and the relevance of the electronic evidence sought to be tendered must first be
laid. Failure to lay necessary foundations makes the document inadmissible.85

4.2. Authentication of Electronically Generated Evidence

Trustworthiness is a word connoting faith or confidence qualified by its reliability and authenticity.
The test of trustworthiness must show its reliability by displaying that records are authentic; on
the other hand, authenticity is revealed by the integrity of the recorded data.86 As a condition
precedent to admissibility, a document must demonstrate that it is what it purports to be before it
can be admitted.87 Therefore, authentication of electronic documents means that a person who
seeks to tender electronic evidence must demonstrate to the court that the document is to be relied
upon.

Few of the challenges of authenticating electronic evidence are integrity and security, both are
considered when authenticating the evidence.88 This is because evidence of electronic nature is
easily malleable and mutable.89 When authenticating an electronic document, there is little to no
guidance on the rules to follow. Therefore, rules guiding authentication vary from case to case
based on their own merits.90 The method of authentication also varies from jurisdiction to

84
He is also known as the Expert who doesn’t need to be a professional or someone with a degree in that field. All
that is required is that he must have shown to the satisfaction of the court that he is knowledgeable enough in that
field.
85
Akeredolu & Anor v. Mimiko & Ors 3PLR/2013/147 (CA)
86
Heather MacNeil, Trusting Records: Legal, Historical and Diplomatic Perspectives (Kluwer Academic Publishers
2000) xi; Livia Iacovino, Recordkeeping, Ethics and Law (Springer 2006) 41.
87
Daniel K B Seng, ‘Computer output as evidence’ [1997] Sing JLS 161–3.
88
Stephen Mason and Allison Stanfield, ‘Authenticating electronic evidence’, in Stephen Mason and Daniel Seng
(eds.), Electronic Evidence (4th edn, University of London 2017) 193.
89
Steven W Teppler, ‘Testable Reliability: A Modernized Approach to ESI Admissibility’ in Ave Maria Law
Review (2014) 12.
90
Stephen Mason and Allison Stanfield (n. 62) 193.

15
jurisdiction. For instance, in India, section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (as amended)
which is in pari materia with section 84 of the Nigerian Evidence Act, 2011 requires a certificate
of authentication to be produced before electronic evidence can be admitted. However, Indian
courts chose to disregard the provisions of the subsection necessitating a certificate of
authentication to be presented before electronic evidence can be admitted. In the case of State v.
Mohd. Afzal & Ors91 the High Court of Delhi held that section 65B (4) allows an alternative method
to prove electronic records. Similarly, the Indian Supreme Court in State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) v.
Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru92 held that electronic records could be admitted without a certificate
of authentication. This remained the position of the Indian courts for nine (9) years. Subsequently,
in 2014 the Supreme Court in Anvar v. P.K. Basheer & Ors93 reversed its decision in State (N.C.T.
Of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru94 by mandating a certificate of authentication to be used
to prove the credibility of electronic evidence in trial.

Before the 2023 amendment of Evidence Act in Nigeria, two things were required to be done to
satisfy authentication requirement. First, oral evidence must be adduced under section 84(2) of the
Evidence Act, 2011 to lay the necessary foundations for the admissibility of the electronic
document seeking to be tendered. The Supreme Court in Kubor & Anor v. Dickson & Ors95 held
that a person willing to rely on an electronically generated document must do more than just
tendering it from the bar. He must adduce sufficient proof in line with the conditions stated in
Section 84(2) of the Evidence Act.

Secondly, a certificate of authentication showing the genuineness of the computer must be signed
by an expert and brought to court to prove the electronic evidence is authentic before it can be
admitted.96 The additional step is required to show that the computer that produced the document
is reliable.97 By virtue of the amendment, electronic evidence can be authenticated digitally by
affixing a digital signature which is considered reliable, in compliance with the law and fulfilling

91
2004 (2) SLJ 308 Delhi.
92
AIR 2005 SC 3820.
93
2014 10 SCC 473.
94
Supra.
95
[2013] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 534, 577-578.
96
Section 84(4) Evidence Act, 2011
97
Unini Chioma, Certificate of Authentication in Admissibility of Electronic Evidence, 8th August 2016,
https://thenigerialawyer.com/electronic-evidence-simple-documents-generated-from-computers-require-no-
authentication-under-section-84-of-the-evidence-act-2011/ <accessed 6th July, 2022>.

16
the conditions of law.98 The signature must link the author of the document to the signature affixed
to the electronic record. In addition, the originality of the digital signature must be proved unless
it can be shown that the signature is a secured digital signature as prescribed by law.99

While the oral evidence needed for necessary foundation and the certificate of authentication
complement each other, digitally authenticated electronic evidence can stand alone and be
admissible. Once the requirements have been met, it becomes the duty of the other party to object
to the genuineness of such document. If sufficient proof cannot be adduced to reject the document,
then it will be admitted. Similarly, where no objection is raised, the document will be admitted.

The major difference between section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and section 84 of the
Nigerian Evidence Act as regards authentication is that, in India, a certificate of authentication
alone is sufficient to prove an electronic document. In Nigeria, to sufficiently prove an electronic
document, oral evidence and a certificate of authentication must be adduced before the court or
the document must be digitally authenticated.

4.3 Relevancy in Authenticating Electronically Generated Evidence

The general rule of admissibility of documents is to the effect that before evidence can be adduced
in court, it must be relevant. Thus, it will not be sufficient to prove that a document is admissible
without first linking the document to a relevant fact in issue.100 Notwithstanding Section 84 of the
Evidence Act, Section 1101 governing the relevancy and admissibility of evidence shall apply.
Consequently, it is not enough to lay necessary foundations and present a certificate of
authentication, or a digitally authenticated electronic evidence before the court to admit it. The
party presenting electronic document as evidence before the court is to establish a link between
the evidence and a fact in issue. Thereafter, the electronic evidence becomes relevant and
admissible. As a result, the electronic evidence would have satisfied the relevancy test and it
becomes admissible in court.

98
Section 84C, Evidence (Amendment) Act, 2023.
99
Section 84D, Ibid.
100
S.J Apochi, ’Admissibility of Electronically Generated Evidence under the Nigerian Evidence Act, 2011:
Challenges and Prospects’ [2021], JETIR (8) (3) 2680.
101
It provides that Evidence which is relevant admissible, except such evidence is governed by the exclusionary
rules provided under the Evidence Act.

17
4.4 Judicial Interpretation of Section 84 of the Evidence Act

In a recent case of Attorney-General of the Federation v Princewill Ugonna Anuebunwa,102 the

Supreme Court addressed a major issue that had plagued section 84 of the Evidence Act, where it
held that

the wordings of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 do not contemplate that before
an original letter is tendered and admitted in evidence, the party tendering same
must satisfy the conditions in the provision. Neither does the provision envisage
same where the admissibility of an original affidavit is in issue.
The court held further that “it would be ridiculous to assume that a document which was typed
using a computer is a computer-generated document”. Unini noted that the statements of the Apex
court would resolve conflicts surrounding the admissibility of documents made using computers103.
The relevance of the decision relates to situations where a computer is merely used as an instrument
of work such as a typewriter104.

Before the above decision, courts have always maintained a strict stance on admissibility of
computer-generated documents. In NBA v Kunle Kalejaiye & Ors105, the court took the view that
the section is not meant to block the admissibility of documents made from computers,

such as using computers and its accessories to type, scan, photocopy or print
documents, even where such documents may require another process for
completion, such as signing, stamping or franking, provided such documents,
though may have passed through the computer, are admissible under other
provisions of the Act like Section 83,87, 90 and 104 amongst other106.
The court in Omisore & Ors v Aregbesola & Ors,107 held that all documents generated by
computers are caught by the requirements for admissibility established by the Act. The Courts
have treated such evidence as secondary evidence that has to be certified before its admission as
evidence. The Supreme Court in Kubor & Ors v Dickson & Ors,108 held that

102
(2022) LPELR-57750(SC)
103
Unini Chioma, ‘Electronic Evidence: Simple Documents Generated from Computers Require No Authentication
Under Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011’ (6 July, 2022, The Nigeria Lawyer)
https://thenigerialawyer.com/electronic-evidence-simple-documents-generated-from-computers-require-no-
authentication-under-section-84-of-the-evidence-act-2011/ <accessed 04th July, 2023.>
104
Ibid.
105
(2016) 6 NWLR (pt. 1508) 393
106
T.A. Aguda, The Law of Evidence (5 th and, spectrum law publishing 2018) 201.
107
(2015) 15 NWLR (pt.1482) 205
108
(2014) 4 NWLR (pt. 1345) 534

18
 there is no evidence on record to show that the appellants in tendering the exhibits
satisfied any of the above conditions. In fact, they did not, as the documents were
tendered and admitted from the Bar. No witness testified before tendering the
documents so there was no opportunity to lay the necessary foundations for their
admissibility.
Unini further noted as follows:

the decision also invalidates the erroneous position in some quarters that any
document produced by a computer must necessarily be treated as computer-
generated to call for the application of Section 84 of the Evidence Act. For the
avoidance of doubt, Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 prescribes the conditions
to be fulfilled to render statements contained in a document produced by a computer
admissible.109

5.0. Challenges of Admissibility of Electronically Generated Evidence in Nigeria

5.0.1 Vulnerability of Electronic Records

The 2011 Evidence Act fails to address the vulnerability of electronic records. There are common
problems accompanying the advancement of technology in the modern era, where messages could
be interfered with and altered before it gets to the receiver. Which may be as a result of hackers or
system malfunction, alterations might even occur during electoral processes. An example of this
arose during the 2014 Ekiti governorship election campaign where the software app “Photoshop”
was used to portray pictures of contestants negatively.110 Another instance of alteration that
occurred in Ekiti was when the electronic recording of the conversation between a military officer
and one of the contestants leaked to the public. Arguments have followed that the recording was
doctored and fake, showing that with technological advancements, electronic recordings can be
manipulated and conversations altered electronically.111

In addition, criminals have been known to use fake names and aliases to avoid being detected. 112
The court in Shell International Petroleum v. Allen Jones113 held that a person using the web may
easily change their identity and under aliases which makes it hard for people to know “you are a

109
Unini, (n.103).
110
A.O. Akanle, A Legal Analysis of Electronic Evidence: The Challenges and Prospects of its Admissibility in
Nigerian Courts (6-7) (1) 147 at 161.
111
Ibid.
112
O.K. Onu and A.A. Ikpinyang, ‘The Use of Electronic Evidence in Trial Advocacy in Nigeria: Benefits and
Challenges’ [2019], ULJ (15) 24.
113
D2003-0821.

19
dog”.114 To further add, some researchers believe that Nigeria lacks adequate laws to combat
cybersecurity.115 Aguda believes cybersecurity laws should have been in place before the advent
of the Evidence Act, 2011 which would have prevented a scenario of putting the cart before the
horse which is the reality in Nigeria.116

The new amendment also did not wholly address issue of vulnerability but instead introduced
digital and electronic signatures and created a safe path to ensure their integrity. It did not discourse
the vulnerability of electronic evidence which do not have a digital signature affixed to it.

5.0.2 Lack of Recognition of Self-Authenticating Electronic Evidence

The Act failed to recognize self-authenticating electronic evidence thereby leading to a waste of
time and resources. Idhiarhi believes that computers can become proficient if simulations can be
shown to the satisfaction of the court, thus, the computer self-authenticates itself. In his words,
“Simulations are computer generated models or reconstructions based on scientific principles,
created by entering data and engaging in computer-assisted analysis by widely accepted
methodology”.117 Thus, instead of relying on video evidence in court, the court can resort to
simulation as it draws opinions from raw data that the court may rely on. In comparison, this form
of authentication saves time and money to be spent on authenticating electronic evidence and
calling an expert to court. However, Act does not provide for the use of such cost-effective methods
in court which had posed a challenge to the admissibility of electronically generated evidence in
Nigeria.

5.0.3 Misunderstanding between Weight and Admissibility of Electronic Evidence

The vulnerability of electronic evidence sparked uncertainties among judges as to its weight and
admissibility. The fact that electronic evidence can be manipulated or altered should not ordinarily
make the courts exclude it, this is because any sort of evidence including paper-based evidence, as

114
Ibid.
115
Lawrence Atsegbua, Law of Evidence (Justice Law Printing & Publishing Global, Benin-City, 2012) 319-320.
116
T.A. Aguda, (n.6) 196.
117
Samuel E. Idhiarhi, Evaluation of Electronically Generated Evidence: Practice and Procedure, (Being a paper
delivered at an Orientation Course for newly Appointed Magistrates at the National Judicial Institute, Abuja, on the
10th July, 2019).

20
well as oral evidence can be altered. This will only affect the weight of such evidence and not its
admissibility.118

In Germany, electronic evidence is considered preliminary evidence, and its admissibility and
weight are to be decided at the Judge’s discretion. Accordingly, putting such conditions in place
for electronic evidence to be admissible and dismissing electronic evidence for lack of sufficient
authentication only evades the difference between the weight to be attached and the admissibility
of the evidence.119 In China, a survey led by 69 Judges had shown that some judges do not
distinguish between the admissibility and weight to be attached to electronic evidence due to a
lack of awareness and inability to evaluate electronic evidence.120

5.0.4 Lack of Technical Know-How among Judges

Some Judges have more knowledge in some areas of law than others which are reflected in their
decisions. For instance, it will likely not appear as a surprise when a Judge who has little to no
knowledge of electronic evidence makes some decision per incuriam. Therefore, whether or not
cases on electronic evidence can be decided appropriately will depend on the Judge121 sitting on
the matter and also on the lawyers handling the matter.122

5.0.5 Interpreting Data from Electronic Evidence can be too Expensive

Interpreting electronic evidence such as highly coded messages may sometimes prove too
expensive and this has posed a problem to the admissibility of electronic evidence in Nigeria. For
example, before highly coded electronic records can be interpreted in court, the court may need to
engage the services of an expert to examine and decode the electronic evidence before its
admissibility. Challenge arises as to the costs for the services of the expert engaged. The party
tendering the evidence may refuse to engage the services of an expert, making his evidence not

118
Onu and Ikpinyang, (n. 82) 24.
119
Ibid. 25.
120
Alexander Duuisberg and Henriette Picot, “Germany” in International Electronic Evidence, British institute of
International and comparative law, (2008) 337.
121
Bo Liu, ‘Problems on Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in the Chinese Context’, Digital Evidence and
Electronic Signature Law Review, 2008.
122
This is because sometimes lawyers who are vast in knowledge in a particular area of law have been known to be
very sound when giving evidence and explaining that area of law in court. Therefore, by this method the lawyer
makes that area of law clear to the Judges and other lawyers in court.

21
admissible. The court may admit the evidence without expert opinion, rendering such evidence(s)
for all intent and purposes irrelevant before the court.123

6.0 Prospects of Electronically Generated Evidence in Nigeria

6.0.1 Ensures Speedy Dispensation of Justice

Section 84, Evidence Act 2011 helps in ensuring prompt dispensation of justice by allowing the
use of electronically generated evidence in courts. Electronic evidence when compared to the
traditional evidence ensures faster means of proving a case in court and ignites zeal of litigants in
the court system.124 Under the Evidence Act, 2004 admissibility of electronically generated
evidence was complex as the law then did not expressly provide for it which made a lot of cases
drag longer than necessary. In some instances where the crux of the matter is centred on electronic
evidence, litigants find it difficult to prove their case in court.

Therefore, section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 played a key role in ensuring speedy dispensation
of justice and paved the way for the use of computerised storage in Nigerian courts. For instance,
the Federal High Court and the High Court both sitting at Abuja allow for a computerised method
of tendering evidence, thereby reducing the need to testify as an eye witness when electronic
evidence can be employed.

6.0.2 Reduce the Malleability of Electronic Records through Self-Authentication

There is the likelihood of admissibility of electronically generated evidence in Nigeria via the use
of self-authentication. By employing self-authentication, the simulation of the data stored in the
computer is displayed in court and how the data was gotten and stored is also displayed to the
satisfaction of the court. This is a better way of authentication as it will not give room for electronic
records brought to the court to be altered in any form. Furthermore, self-authentication ensures
that authentication is done to the satisfaction of the courts and litigants leaving no room for
unreasonable doubts.

123
Akanle, (n. 80) 164.
124
Ibid. 165-166.

22
6.0.3 Ensure the Dynamism of Law and its Conformity with Modern Systems

The use of electronically generated evidence in court will keep evolving as it is a system that relies
on continuous research in order to achieve ease of the administration of justice. Through research,
policies are formulated and implemented to further enhance the growth of the admissibility of
electronically generated evidence in Nigeria.125 The 2023 amendment of the Act further ensures
dynamism as the Minister of Justice has now been vested with powers to make regulations
affecting the admissibility of electronic evidence when there is a lacuna in the law.126

7.0 Conclusion

There is no doubt that section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 and its amendment had increased
admissibility of electronic evidence in Nigeria, however, the law appears to be insufficient. The
insufficiency stems mostly from the lack of procedural law on the admissibility of electronic
evidence which forces the courts into using its discretion in most cases. Thus, there is need for the
legislature to amend the sections on electronic evidence in the Act in order to meet international
best practices. In addition, it is hoped that the new Evidence Act 2023 will soon be tested in courts
to guarantee certainty in the law.

125
This can be achieved by not constricting the words of the law particularly dealing on electronic evidence to leave
space for new meanings and future innovations in electronic evidence. Also, from time-to-time review of the laws
on electronic evidence to make sure that such laws are up to standard will go a long way in ensuring dynamism of
the law and its conformity with modernity as far as electronically generated evidence is concerned.
126
Section 9, Evidence (Amendment) Act, 2023.

23