The Pillars of Proof: A Deep Dive into Evidence Law in Nigerian Courts.

■ INTRODUCTION.
The integrity of any judicial system rests heavily on its rules of evidence. In Nigeria, the Evidence Act 2011 is the foundational statute that governs what can and cannot be presented to a court as proof, as well as the manner it should be presented. With the rapid evolution of technology, understanding these rules has become more critical than ever, especially concerning digital documents, and the amendment of the Evidence Act in 2023. This article provides an extensive and educational look into the key principles of evidence law, focusing on the admissibility of electronic evidence, crucial procedural maneuvers, and the overarching principles that guide a court's decision-making.

■ The Digital Revolution and the Law: Admissibility Under Section 84.
Before the enactment of the Evidence Act 2011, the admissibility of electronic evidence in Nigerian courts was a legal quagmire. The previous law was largely silent on the issue, leading to inconsistent judicial decisions and often a "near zero tolerance" for electronically generated documents as evidence. The 2011 Act amended in 2023, therefore, was a bold and necessary step, with Section 84 serving as a modern gateway for the court to accept evidence produced by computers and other electronic devices.
For a computer-generated document to be admitted into evidence, a "proper foundation" must be laid. This involves proving to the court that the evidence is trustworthy and has not been tampered with. In the seminal Supreme Court case of Dickson v. Sylva, (2016) LPELR- 41257 (SC). The court provided clarity on how this foundation can be established, affirming two distinct and equally valid methods:
1. Oral Testimony: A party can call a witness to testify about the computer system and the document's generation process. This witness does not necessarily need to be a computer expert, but they must be a person in a position of responsibility in relation to the computer's operation or management. The witness must be able to satisfy the court of the conditions laid out in Section 84(2) of the Act, which includes confirming that:
● The document was produced by a computer that was regularly used.
● The information in the document was supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of its activities.
●The computer was operating properly during that period, or any malfunction did not affect the accuracy of the document.
● The information in the document is a reproduction of the data supplied to the computer.
2. Certificate of Compliance: Alternatively, a lawyer can simply tender a formal written certificate signed by a person in a responsible position. This certificate must identify the document and describe the manner in which it was produced, thereby attesting to its authenticity. This method is often preferred as it is a more straightforward way to meet the requirements without the need for extensive oral testimony about the computer's inner workings.
The pronouncement in Dickson v. Sylva (supra) was groundbreaking because it made it clear that a party has a choice: either provide oral testimony or a certificate. They are not required to do both. This dual-pronged approach strikes a balance between ensuring the authenticity of digital evidence and making the process of its admission practical in a court of law.

■ The Art of the Withdrawal: A Tactical Maneuver for Counsel.
Legal proceedings are a complex blend of substance and procedure. Even with the clearest rules, errors can occur. A critical procedural principle that offers a safety net for legal practitioners is the right to withdraw and re-tender a document that has been objected to by the opposing counsel. This is not a right of an endless second chance, but a strategic tool that prevents the outright loss of a document due to a correctable procedural flaw.
In the case of Ihekweme v. Obua, (2013) JELR (35304 (CA); 2013) LPELR-20379 (CA). The court affirmed that a counsel can withdraw a document tendered but objected to by their opponent, as long as they have not yet "joined issues" on the objection. To "join issues" means to have already engaged in a full-blown argument on the merits of the objection. If a lawyer sees that an objection, for instance, on the lack of a certificate of compliance for an electronic document is valid, they can immediately withdraw the document, rectify the issue (e.g., by obtaining the required certificate), and then re-tender it at a later stage.
If the party withdrew the document voluntarily before the court ruled, then technically the court has not made a pronouncement yet. In that situation, the party could later attempt to re-tender it (but the court may frown on the practice as an abuse of process or a waste of time).
But if the document was objected to and arguments were joined (i.e., both sides have addressed admissibility), then the court has already been seised of the objection. At that stage, the proper thing is for the court to rule one way or the other. The same party cannot casually withdraw and re-tender the document, because that would amount to re-opening an objection that is already before the court. In any case, without a withdrawal, the court will have to rule on either side. Either accept the evidence and mark it as exhibit or reject it. When the court had ruled, it can no longer the withdrawn.
This procedural right is vital. Without it, a crucial piece of evidence could be permanently lost from the case on a mere technicality. The principle reflects a legal system that values a fair hearing and the pursuit of justice over strict, unyielding adherence to procedural rules, ensuring that justice is not "trampled under the thin-layered foot of technical justice".

■ The Foundational Principles of Admissibility.
While the specific rules for electronic evidence and procedural maneuvers are important, they all operate within a broader set of foundational principles that govern the admissibility of all evidence in court. Understanding these principles is essential for anyone seeking to navigate the legal system.
a) Pleaded: The document sought to be tendered must have first been pleaed in the parties statement of claim. Else, such document no matter how relevant will not be tendered or relied upon in court. The relevance of a document is determined by pleadings, as no one will fail to plead a document that would help his case. For the law is that he who asserts must prove. Section 135 Evidence Act 2011. Oyediran V. Alebiosu II (1992) 5 NWLR (pt. 249) 550.
b) Relevance: This is the most basic and arguably the most important principle. Evidence is only admissible if it is relevant to a fact in issue in the case. A piece of evidence is relevant if it makes the existence or non-existence of a material fact more or less probable. For example, in a car accident case, testimony about the weather conditions at the time of the crash would be relevant, while a witness's favorite color would be irrelevant. Adeyefa & Ors v. Bamgboye (2014) LPELR-22884 (SC).
c) Admissibility vs. Weight: This is a crucial distinction. The court first decides whether a piece of evidence is admissible (can it be let into the court record?). Once admitted, the court then determines the weight or credibility it will attach to that evidence. For instance, a witness's testimony might be admissible, but if the witness is shown to have a motive to lie, the court may give their testimony very little weight. Similarly, a computer-generated document may be admissible under Section 84, but if the opposing party can prove the computer had a history of errors, the court may give the document less weight. Section 34 Evidence Act 2011.
d) Exclusionary Rules: Even if evidence is relevant, it can still be excluded based on certain rules. These exclusionary rules are designed to prevent the admission of evidence that may be unreliable or unfairly prejudicial. A common example is the rule against hearsay, which generally prohibits a witness from testifying about what another person said outside of court to prove the truth of what was said. Sections 14 and 15 Evidence Act 2011.
e) Laying a Foundation: This principle ties everything together. Before any piece of evidence, be it a document, a photograph, or a testimony, can be admitted, the party tendering it must lay a proper foundation, especially when it is about a computer generated evidence. This involves providing the court with the necessary context and proof to show that the evidence meets all the legal requirements for admissibility. In the case of electronic evidence, this foundation is laid by providing oral testimony or a certificate of compliance, as mandated by Section 84.

■ CONCLUSION.
The admissibility of evidence in Nigerian courts is a multifaceted process guided by specific legal principles and procedural rules. As technology becomes more integrated into daily life, understanding the Evidence Act 2011, especially Section 84, is essential for any party seeking to present their case.
The landmark case of Dickson v. Sylva (supra) solidified the dual-pronged approach to admitting computer-generated evidence, giving lawyers the flexibility to rely on either oral testimony or a formal certificate of compliance. This clarity is a significant advancement that helps ensure that justice is not lost on a mere technicality.
Furthermore, procedural safeguards, such as the right to withdraw and re-tender a document, as established in Ihekweme v. Obua, (supra) empower counsel to correct errors and ensure that relevant evidence is ultimately considered. These specific rules, however, are merely applications of more fundamental principles of evidence law: relevance, the distinction between admissibility and weight, and the various exclusionary rules. Together, these principles form the bedrock of a fair legal system, ensuring that the court bases its decisions on reliable and properly presented facts.

■ REFERENCES
Statute.
1. Evidence Act 2011 (as Amended 2023)
Case laws.
Adeyefa & Ors v. Bamgboye (2014) LPELR-22884 (SC).
Dickson v. Sylva, (2016) LPELR- 41257 (SC)
Ihekweme v. Obua, (2013) JELR (35304 (CA); 2013) LPELR-20379 (CA).
Oyediran V. Alebiosu II (1992) 5 NWLR (pt. 249) 550.