The defence in the ongoing trial of the two engineers of the collapsed Synagogue Church of All Nations (SCOAN) building at an Ikeja High Court, objected to the admissibility into evidence of a Compact Disc (VCD) video recording of the building collapse.
The defence led by Chief E.L Akpofure (SAN) objected to the admissibility of the VCD during continuation of the testimony of Mr Olutoyin Ayinde, a former Lagos State Commissioner of Physical Planning and Urban Development.
The VCD is purportedly containing a Close Circuit Television (CCTV) recording of an aircraft hovering above the building moments before its collapse.
Chief Akpofure said: “I am objecting My Lord in the first place to the admissibility of document sought to be tendered by the prosecution because it has been labeled by the witness as being computer generated.
“Going by the evidence of the witness who said ‘until I watch the VCD, I won’t be in a position to ascertain whether this is the video i am referring to in my evidence.’ This witness is not in a position to tender this evidence until he sees the content and identifies same.
“This document is labeled as a Certified True Copy (CTC) of planning permit, which has nothing to do with the video the witness is talking about and from his own evidence, the computer that produced the recording was not operated by him.”
Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mrs Titi Akinlawon in her objection said “It is only the maker of a document that can tender it as evidence according to Section 83 of the Evidence Act.
“This document was not certified by him and on the strength of this, I admit that the document cannot be admitted as evidence.”
Mr Olalekan Ojo while objecting said “The document is a copy of the original recording was given to the Lagos State Government by the General Overseer of SCOAN.
“Being a copy, it is my general submission that for admissibility in evidence, the prosecution has a duty to have what is being sought to be tendered by them authenticated by the church being the maker of the evidence.
“I submit that the document is inadmissible in law because it is a secondary evidence of the original.”
Responding, Mrs Idowu Alakija, the Lagos State Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) said the VCD was admissible as evidence.
“My Lord, the witness does not need to be the maker of the document for it to be admissible in evidence, a document is admissible irrespective of how it was obtained.
“Section 258 of the Evidence Act states clearly what can be classified as a document and this VCD that has been certified I submit is a document, she said.”
Earlier, Mr. Ayinde while being led in evidence by Mrs. Alakija had told the court that he could not identify the contents of the VCD until he viewed its contents.
“We had sent a copy of the VCD to the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) and the Ministry of Justice and at the time of the incident, other copies were made for personal use of some individuals, the video which went viral on the internet was also downloaded by the public.
“In my office, my Personal Assistant used a HP laptop to reproduce copies which was a normal process, the laptop was used for official work and as at the time of leaving office, that laptop was still in good condition.
However, until I watch the contents of the VCD about to be tendered as evidence, I won’t be in a position to ascertain whether this is the video I am referring to, Ayinde said.”
The defence led by Chief E.L Akpofure (SAN) objected to the admissibility of the VCD during continuation of the testimony of Mr Olutoyin Ayinde, a former Lagos State Commissioner of Physical Planning and Urban Development.
The VCD is purportedly containing a Close Circuit Television (CCTV) recording of an aircraft hovering above the building moments before its collapse.
Chief Akpofure said: “I am objecting My Lord in the first place to the admissibility of document sought to be tendered by the prosecution because it has been labeled by the witness as being computer generated.
“Going by the evidence of the witness who said ‘until I watch the VCD, I won’t be in a position to ascertain whether this is the video i am referring to in my evidence.’ This witness is not in a position to tender this evidence until he sees the content and identifies same.
“This document is labeled as a Certified True Copy (CTC) of planning permit, which has nothing to do with the video the witness is talking about and from his own evidence, the computer that produced the recording was not operated by him.”
Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mrs Titi Akinlawon in her objection said “It is only the maker of a document that can tender it as evidence according to Section 83 of the Evidence Act.
“This document was not certified by him and on the strength of this, I admit that the document cannot be admitted as evidence.”
Mr Olalekan Ojo while objecting said “The document is a copy of the original recording was given to the Lagos State Government by the General Overseer of SCOAN.
“Being a copy, it is my general submission that for admissibility in evidence, the prosecution has a duty to have what is being sought to be tendered by them authenticated by the church being the maker of the evidence.
“I submit that the document is inadmissible in law because it is a secondary evidence of the original.”
Responding, Mrs Idowu Alakija, the Lagos State Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) said the VCD was admissible as evidence.
“My Lord, the witness does not need to be the maker of the document for it to be admissible in evidence, a document is admissible irrespective of how it was obtained.
“Section 258 of the Evidence Act states clearly what can be classified as a document and this VCD that has been certified I submit is a document, she said.”
Earlier, Mr. Ayinde while being led in evidence by Mrs. Alakija had told the court that he could not identify the contents of the VCD until he viewed its contents.
“We had sent a copy of the VCD to the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) and the Ministry of Justice and at the time of the incident, other copies were made for personal use of some individuals, the video which went viral on the internet was also downloaded by the public.
“In my office, my Personal Assistant used a HP laptop to reproduce copies which was a normal process, the laptop was used for official work and as at the time of leaving office, that laptop was still in good condition.
However, until I watch the contents of the VCD about to be tendered as evidence, I won’t be in a position to ascertain whether this is the video I am referring to, Ayinde said.”
No comments:
Post a Comment