LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

FRN v. DANLADI (2020)

FRN v. DANLADI

(2020)LCN/14301(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, June 26, 2020

CA/A/687C/2017

Before Our Lordships:

Peter Olabisi Ige Justice of the Court of Appeal

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Court of Appeal

Yargata Byenchit Nimpar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA APPELANT(S)

And

HASSAN DANLADI RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

THE CRITERIA FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT IN CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CASES

The criteria for admissibility of a document in civil or criminal cases have been stated in numerous cases.
In civil cases the conditions are that:-
1. The document must be relevant
2. It must be pleaded;
3. It must be admissible under the Evidence Act 2011 or any other statute governing its admissibility. See:-
1. OYEDIRAN VS ALEBIOSU II (1992) 6 NWLR (PART 249) 550 AT 566;
2. OKONJI V NJOKANMA (1999) 14 NWLR (PART 638) 250.
3. E. FREDRICK VS PRINCE F. C. IBEKWE (2019) 7 NWLR (PART 1702) 467 AT 480 G – H per EKO, JSC who said:
“At the risk of repetition, I will re-state that the trite principle of evidence law on admissibility of a piece of evidence is basically its relevance to the facts in issue. The three criteria that govern admissibility in evidence of a document in evidence, from a number of cases, are
i. whether the document is pleaded;
ii. whether the document is relevant to the issues being tried or in dispute between the parties, and whether it is admissible in law. That is, whether any rule of law or provision of statute renders it inadmissible in evidence.
See Okonkwo Okonji & Ors. V. George Njokanma & Ors. (1999) – 12 SC (Pt. 11) 150, (1999) 14 NWLR (Pt. 638) 250; Dunya V. Jimoh (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 334) 609 at 617.” PER IGE, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A NEED TO CERTIFY AN ORIGINAL COPY OF A DOCUMENT ISSUED BY A PUBLIC OFFICER

It is my view that there was no need to certify the original copy of the letter even though it was issued to him by a public officer. It is the public officer who keeps the original of a public document who certifies a copy of it which can be tendered where the original cannot be tendered. Put differently, the only categories of public documents that are admissible are either the original document itself or in the absence of such original certified copies and no other. See: Minister of Lands, Western Nigeria V. Azikiwe (1969) 1 All NLR 49: Nzekwu V. Nzekwu (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 104) 373: Iteogu V. L.P.D.C. (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614 at 634 paragraphs G-H, this Court per Onnoghen, JSC held as follows:
“While it is correct to say that the only secondary evidence of a public document admissible in evidence Is a certified true copy, the document in question were duly certified while those not so certified were original correspondences addressed from the Ministries of Defence and Works to the petitioner in person and were tendered by the petitioner.” (underlined mine). PER IGE, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE CARDINAL CONSIDERATION IN THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT IS RELEVANCE

Where a document sought to be tendered is relevant and satisfy the conditions for its admissibility in evidence it will be admitted by a Court or Tribunal seised of the matter. See the case of ALBAN AJAEGBO V. THE STATE (2018) 11 NWLR (PART 631) 484 AT 506G per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC who said:-
“The law is well settled that the cardinal consideration in the admissibility of a document is relevance. Once a document is relevant to the facts in issue and is legally admissible, it would be admitted in evidence. See: Fawehinmi V. N.B.A. (No. 2) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 105) 558; B. O. N. v. Saleh (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 618) 331:, Torti V. Ukpabi (1984) 1 SCNLR 224; Okoye V. Obiaso (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1175) 145.PER IGE, J.C.A.

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Respondent was arraigned on nine Count Charge before the lower Court on 16th December, 2015. The Charge reads:-
“CHARGE
COUNT ONE
That you Hassana Danladi (f) of Pasali – Kuje. behind L.E.A. Office, Kuje. Abuja: a public officer (PA 1) with the Nigerian Prison Service, Kuje, Abuja of Service NO. 48444; on or about the 3rd day of August, 2012 received from one VICTORIA BOBAI the sum of N120,000.00 (One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira) only through your Ecobank Account No. 0009152507 domiciled in Abuja, to facilitate the employment of her two sons and some other persons into the Nigeria Customs Service through your acclaimed connections: and you thereby committed on offence contrary to and punishable under Section 10(a)(ii) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000.
COUNT TWO
That you Hassana Danladi (f) of Pasali – Kuje, Behind L.E.A. Office Kuje, Abuja: a public officer (PA 1) with the Nigerian Prison Service Kuje, Abuja of Service NO. 48444; on or about the 4th day of December, 2012 received from one VICTORIA BOBAI the sum of N100,000.00 (One

1

Hundred Thousand Noire) only through your Ecobank Account No. 00091525071 domiciled in Abuja, to facilitate the employment of her two sons and some other persons into the Nigeria Customs Service through your acclaimed connections and you thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 10(a)(ii) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
COUNT THREE
That you Hassana Danladi (f) of Pasali – Kuje, Behind L.E.A. Office, Kuje, Abuja; a public officer [PA 1] with the Nigerian Prison Service, Kuje, Abuja of Service NO. 48444; on or about the 6th day of December, 2012 received from one VICTORIA BOBAI the sum of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) only through your Ecobank Account No. 0009152507 domiciled in Abuja. to facilitate the employment of her two sons and some other persons into the Nigeria Customs Service through your acclaimed connections: and you thereby committed on offence contrary to and punishable under Section 10 (a) (ii) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000.
COUNT FOUR
That you Hassana Danladi (f) of Pasali – Kuje, Behind L.E.A. Office, Kuje, Abuja; a public

2

officer [PA 1) with the Nigerian Prison Service, Kuje, Abuja of Service No. 48444; on or about the 23rd day of August, 2012 received from one SAMAILA ALHAMDU MAISHERA the sum of N220,000.00 (Two Hundred & Twenty Thousand Naira) only through your Ecobank Account No. 0009152507 domiciled in Abuja, to facilitate his employment and that of some other persons into the Nigeria Customs Service through your acclaimed connections; and you thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 10 (a) (ii) of the Corrupt Practices and Other- Related Offences Act 2000.
COUNT FIVE
That you Hassana Danladi (f) of Pasali – Kuje, Behind L.E.A. Office, Kuje, Abuja; a public officer [PA 1] with the Nigerian Prison Service Kuje, Abuja of Service NO. 48444; on or about the 12th day of October, 2012 received from one SAMAILA ALHAMDU MAISHERA the sum of N120,000.00 (One Hundred & Twenty Thousand Naira) only through your Ecobank Account No. 0009152507 domiciled in Abuja, to facilitate his employment and that of some other persons into the Nigeria Customs Service through your acclaimed connections: and you thereby committed an offence contrary to and

3

punishable under Section 10(a) (ii) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000.
COUNT SIX
That you Hassana Danladi (f) of Pasali – Kuje, Behind L.E.A. Office, Kuje, Abuja: a public officer (PA 1) with the Nigerian Prison Service, Kuje, Abuja of Service NO. 48444; on or about the – 13th day of November, 2012 received from one SAMAILA ALHAMDU MAISHERA the sum of N300,000.00 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) only through your Ecobank Account No. 0009152507 domiciled in Abuja, to facilitate his employment and that of some other persons into the Nigeria Customs Service through your acclaimed connections: and you thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 10(a)(ii) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000.
COUNT SEVEN
That you Hassana Danladi (f) of Pasali – Kuje, Behind L.E.A. Office, Kuje, Abuja: a public officer (PA 1) with the Nigerian Prison Service, Kuje, Abuja of Service NO. 48444; on or about the 19th day of November 2012 received from one SAMAILA ALHAMDU MAISHERA the sum of N220,000.00 (Two Hundred Twenty Thousand Naira) only through your Ecobank Account No 0009152507

4

domiciled in Abuja, to facilitate his employment and that of some other persons into the Nigeria Customs Service through your acclaimed connections: and you thereby committed on offence contrary to and punishable under Section 10 (a) (ii) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
COUNT EIGHT
That you Hassana Danladi (f) of Pasali-Kuje, Behind L.E.A. Office, Kuje, Abuja: a public officer (PA 1) with the Nigerian Prison Service, Kuje, Abuja of Service NO. 48444; on or about the 22nd day of November, 2012 received from one SAMAILA ALHAMDU MAISHRA the sum of N150,000.00 (One Hundred & Fifty Thousand Naira) only through your Ecobank Account No. 0009152507 domiciled in Abuja, to facilitate his employment and that of some other persons into the Nigeria Customs Service through your acclaimed connections: and you thereby committed on offence contrary to and punishable under Section 10(a) (ii) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
COUNT NINE
That you Hassana Danladi (f) of Pasali – Kuje, Behind L.E.A. Office, Kuje, Abuja; a public officer (PA 1) with the Nigerian Prison Service, Kuje, Abuja of Service

5

  1. 48444: on or about the 15th day of February, 2013 received from one SAMAILA ALHAMDU MAISHERA the sum of N215,000.00 (Two Hundred & Fifteen Thousand Naira) only through your Ecobank Account No. 0009152507 domiciled in Abuja, to facilitate his employment and that of some other persons into the Nigeria Customs Service through your acclaimed connections: and you thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 10 (a) (ii) of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offence Act 2000.
    Dated this 14th day of December, 2015.”

The plea of the Defendant was taken on 6th June 2016. The Respondent pleaded NOT GUILTY to the Nine Counts contained in the Charge and was granted bail on 10th June, 2016 and trial commenced with PW1 one Mrs. ZAHARA TINAJI M. MRS an Investigator with the ICPC.

It came to light from her evidence that the Counts against the Respondent as contained in the Charge afore said were founded on the investigation of a Petition originated against the Respondent by one Mrs. Victoria Bobai through her solicitors to ICPC.

In the course of evidence, the prosecution sought to tender Certified True Copy of the

6

Petition written against the Respondent through PW1 by ENOSA OMOGHIBO, ESQ. Learned Counsel for the Prosecution. The learned Counsel to the Respondent S. M. YACIM, ESQ objected to the admissibility of the Petition and its attachments principally on the ground that the Petition though certified along with the attachments were not in custody of the Appellant. The learned Counsel to the Respondent submitted on page 151 of the record at the lower Court that:-
“By Section 104 the proper custody of the documents is not ICPC. It is the bank. The document is said to have been certified by the ICPC who are not the custodian. They are therefore inadmissible .”

Notwithstanding the argument of the Prosecution’s Counsel that the Petition was received by Appellant and was in custody of the Appellant by virtue of which it became a public document. The lower Court rejected the Certified True Copy of the Petition. The Ruling delivered on the objection is as follows:-
“RULING
I have listened to the argument of both Counsel – I have no difficulty in understanding that the document sought to be tendered is a petition allegedly written to the ICPC against – the

7

defendant.
However, rather than tender the original as forwarded and received – the prosecution is saying that the original is with the Chairman of the ICPC from whom they have obtained a Certified True copy.
The question is why – the ICPC. Learned Counsel for the prosecution – submit that having received the petition – it has become a public document. Therefore a CTC of the same can be tendered – as on acceptable form where the document is in issue.
With due respect, that is not the correct position of the law ICPC is not a registry where documents are deposited, like land Registry, Commission registry, that is what is contemplated: under Section 102 of the Evidence Act alleged to be Mr. Omoghibo.
I think in the circumstances that the documents sought to be tendered is within the form  in which they con be admissible. Counsel rightly argue that a document must be relevant and admissible in their form that rendered them admissible. This document has failed the twin test of relevancy and proper form.
The CTC of the alleged petition are therefore not admissible, same is rejected and marked as tender but rejected.”

8

This was on the 11th October, 2016.

The Appellant was aggrieved and has by its Notice of Appeal dated and filed the 13th day of October, 2016 appealed to the Court on a lone ground viz:.
“1. Enosa Omoghibo an Asst. Chief Legal Officer of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, Plot 802, Constitution Avenue, Central Area, Abuja: the Prosecutor in the above case and being desirous of appealing against the Ruling of Honorable Justice C. U. Ndukwe, Court 37, FCT High Court, Kuje, delivered on the 11th of October, 2016; under Section 243 (a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended: DO HEREBY GIVE NOTICE OF APPEAL on the following grounds set out on paragraph 3 and will at the hearing of the appeal seek the relief(s) set out in paragraph 4.
AND the appellant further state that the names and addresses of the persons directly affected by the appeal are set out in paragraph 5.
2. PART OF THE RULING OF THE LOWER COURT COMPLAINED OF:
The Ruling rejecting to admit in evidence a Certified True Copy of a petition dated 15th August 2014 titled COMPLAINT OF FRAUDULENTLY RECEIVING MONEY BY A PUBLIC

9

OFFICER- SERGEANT HASSANA DANLADI sent to the Chairman, ICPC by the law office of Gabriel Didam & Company of AM 17, Kazaure Road, Kaduna and all the attachments.
3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
GROUND ONE
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the Independent Corrupt Practices & Other Related Offences Commission [ICPC] is not a registry and as such cannot certify a petition received by it.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1) The Learned trial Judge did not consider the provisions of Section 3 (1) & (2) of the Corrupt Practices & Other Related Offences Act 2000 and Section 102 (a) (ii) of the Evidence Act 2011 to come to the conclusion that the ICPC is an official body of the government of Nigeria.
2) The Learned trial Judge did not consider the provisions of Section 27 (2) & (5) of the Corrupt Practices & Other Related Offences Act 2000 and thus misdirected himself in coming to the conclusion that ICPC is not a registry and cannot certify a petition and anexures as received by it.
3) The trial Judge did not consider the provisions of Section 102 (b) of the Evidence Act 2011 to come to the conclusion that

10

petitions sent to ICPC by the general public become public documents when in the custody of the ICPC.
4. RELIEFS SOUGHT FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL:
An Order setting aside the Ruling of the trial Court, it having been reached in error and substituting same with an Order admitting in evidence the Certified True Copy of a petition dated 15th August, 2014 titled “COMPLAINT OF FRAUDULENTLY RECEIVING MONEY BY A PUBLIC OFFICER-SERGEANT HASSANA DANLADI” sent to the Chairman, ICPC by the law office of Gabriel Didam & Company of AM 17, Kazaure Road, Kaduna and all the attachments.”

​The Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated 21st day of December, 2017 was filed on 29th December, 2017. It was deemed properly filed on 28th of April, 2020. The Respondent’s Brief of Argument was dated 6th May 2020 and filed 18th May, 2020. The appeal was heard on 2nd June, 2020 when the learned Counsel to the parties adopted their Briefs of Argument.

​The learned Counsel to the Appellant ENOSA OMOGHIBO, ESQ ACLO in ICPC distilled a lone issue for determination of the appeal namely:
“Whether the learned trial Judge did not err in law when he held that the

11

Independent Corrupt Practices & Other Related Offences Commission [ICPC] is not a registry and as such cannot certify a petition received by it. (Formulated from the lone Ground of the Notice of Appeal).”

The learned Counsel to the Respondent S. M. YACIM, ESQ also formulated an issue for determination of the Appeal viz:-
“Whether in the circumstances of this appeal, the trial Court was right in law to have refused to admit in evidence: the bundle of documents tendered by the Appellant as the certified true copy of the “Petition” sought to be admitted in evidence.”

The lone issue raised on either side is coterminous as all boil down to whether the lower Court properly rejected the Petition or the document sought to be tender as exhibit in the course of the P.W.1’s evidence.

I will however utilise the issue formulated by the learned Counsel to the Appellant to determine the appeal.
“Whether the learned trial Judge did not err in law when he held that the Independent Corrupt Practices & Other Related Offences Commission [ICPC] is not a registry and as such cannot certify a petition received by it.”

12

The learned Counsel to the Appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge erred in law and it occasioned a miscarriage of justice when he held that Independent Corrupt Practices & Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) is not a Registry and as such cannot certify a Petition received which in this case s the Petition titled:-
“Complaint of Fraudulent Receiving of Money by a Public Officer Sergeant Hassan Danladi.”
along with all the attachments as received, duly certified by the designated official of the ICPC.

According to the learned Counsel to the Appellant the function of the ICPC are set out in Section 6 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000. He stated that by virtue of the Section of the Act, it is empowered to receive report in form of Petition from the Public alleging the Commission of Corrupt Practices which the Commission in appropriate cases after investigation may decide to prosecute if sufficient evidence is available to do so. He relied on Section 27 of ICPC Act particularly Section 27(5) thereof to contend that it is from the Registry of the ICPC that Certified True Copies of the Petition or Report are made by

13

Officers of ICPC and such Certified True Copies are admissible in evidence. He therefore submitted further that by Section 27(5) of ICPC Act, ICPC is statutorily empowered to have a Registry of Reports/Petitions from where its Officers can certify documents as True Copies of the Original rendering it admissible in evidence.

He also submitted that ICPC is a Public Body within the contemplation of Section 102 of the Evidence Act 2011 and contended that Petitions/Reports received by ICPC are registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 27(2) of the ICPC Act are documents forming the official acts or records of an official body which in this case according to Appellants learned Counsel is ICPC, a body which he said was established by the provisions of Section 3(1) and (2) of the Corrupt Practices & Other Related Offences Act 2000 which is an Act of the National Assembly of Nigeria.

He also stated that Petitions/Reports sent in to the ICPC by private individuals though private documents, acquire “the garb” of public documents upon receipt and registration or entering of same into the records of ICPC pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Evidence Act, 2011

14

Section 102 thereof.

He submitted that by virtue of Section 89(a)(e) and 90(1(c) of the Evidence Act 2011 provides that only a Certified True Copy of a Public Document should be admissible a secondary evidence of the content of such documents, ICPC acted within the law in producing Certified True Copy for tendering and admissibility of same in evidence. He relied on the case ofDAGGASH V. BULAMA (2004)14 NWLR (PT. 892) 146 AT 204 E and 231. He stated that that is the reason PW1 tendered Certified True Copy of the Petition and its attachments which was rejected.

The learned Counsel to the Appellant urged this Court to allow the appeal, set aside the Ruling of the lower Court delivered on 11th October, 2016 and to admit the said Petition as Exhibit since the documents met the conditions for admissibility in evidence.

In response to the above submissions for the Appellant’s learned Counsel, S. M. YACIM. ESQ stated the settled position of the law that the parties are bound by record of proceedings or record of appeal, He relied on the case of AGBAREH V. MIMRA (2008) 1 KLR (PT. 246) 67 PAGE 87. He submitted that the record of appeal shows

15

on page 151 lines 5 – 11 that PW1 did not say anything as the to the type of document sought to be tendered and that it was not described contrary to the submissions of Appellant’s learned Counsel on pages 2 – 3 of the record paragraphs 2.1 and 3.1 thereof. He urged the Court to discountenance facts contained therein as same are misleading.

That contrary to the contention of Appellant to the effect that the appeal has to do with whether ICPC has power to certify document from its registry/custody what is in contention was whether the document which the Appellant sought to tender was different in terms of pages contained on the copy served on the Respondent and whether ICPC could properly under Sections 89, 90 and 104 of the Evidence Act 2011 certified the Letter of Complaint which was referred to as “Petition” in this appeal with bundle of annexed documents as certified True Copy of the Original to be admitted a whole as secondary evidence under the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended.

​That on pages 129 – 131 of the document was a 3 page document but what they sought to tender was a 15 page document contained on pages 129 – 141 of the record of

16

appeal. That apart from the first three pages, other documents were mainly bank transaction documents and tellers of which the originals cannot be in custody of ICPC but with Ecobank Ltd.

According to him what the lower Court dwelt upon for rejecting the document is that CPC cannot be described as Registry that can properly certify the entire documents as certified true copy that could be admitted as secondary evidence.

He conceded that the 3 page Petition could be certified by ICPC but not the remaining 12 page documents bearing stamp of certified true copy. He relied on Section 89(e) and Section 102(b) of the Evidence Act 2011 and Section 89(h), 90(1)(e) and 104(1) of Evidence Act which according to him prohibit ICPC from certifying the attachments as they are entries in a Bankers book hence it was properly rejected.

That the documents did not pass the three hurdles for admissibility stated in the case of OKOYE V. OBIASO (2010) KLR (P. 280) 1329 AT 1343 viz:-
1) That the document must be pleaded;
(2) Whether it is relevant to subject matter before a Court or Tribunal and
(3) Whether it is admissible in law.

17

He urged the Court to discountenance the submission of the Appellant to the effect that ICPC being a government agency with Registry can rightly certify and tendered the bundle of documents as certified copies. He urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.

Now, the learned Counsel to the Appellant had submitted before the lower Court as can be seen from the Ruling of the learned trial Court on pages 152 – 152 of the record of appeal that Certified True Copy of the Petition written to ICPC against the Respondent was in custody of ICPC Chairman from whom they obtained a Certified True Copy, which the Appellant sought to tender before the lower Court. The learned Counsel to the Appellant further submitted that the Petition had become a Public Document hence Certified True Copy of it is admissible.
The lower Court was taken aback that rather than tender the Original as forwarded and received – the Prosecution is saying that the document is with the Chairman of ICPC from whom they have obtained a Certified True Copy. The lower Court wondered how ICPC could have certified the Petition and sought to tender same when according to the learned trial Judge ICPC is not like a

18

land Registry contemplated under Section 102 of the Evidence Act 2011.
The learned trial Judge said empathically:-
“With due respect, that is not the correct position of the law. ICPC is not a registry- where documents are deposited like land Registry, Commission registry, that is what is contemplated; under Section 102 of the Evidence Act alleged to be Mr. Omoghibo. (sic).
I think in the circumstances that the documents- sought to be tendered is within the form – in which they can be admissible. Counsel rightly argue that a document must be relevant and admissible in their form – that rendered them admissible. This document has failed the twin test of relevancy and proper form. The CTC of the alleged petition are therefore not admissible. The same is rejected and marked as tender but rejected.”
The learned Counsel to the Appellant has contended that the document sought to be tendered is a public document within the meaning of Section 102 of the Evidence Act and as such only Certified True Copy certified by ICPC Registry is admissible.
​The criteria for admissibility of a document in civil or criminal cases have been stated in numerous

19

cases.
In civil cases the conditions are that:-
1. The document must be relevant
2. It must be pleaded;
3. It must be admissible under the Evidence Act 2011 or any other statute governing its admissibility. See:-
1. OYEDIRAN VS ALEBIOSU II (1992) 6 NWLR (PART 249) 550 AT 566;
2. OKONJI V NJOKANMA (1999) 14 NWLR (PART 638) 250.
3. E. FREDRICK VS PRINCE F. C. IBEKWE (2019) 7 NWLR (PART 1702) 467 AT 480 G – H per EKO, JSC who said:
“At the risk of repetition, I will re-state that the trite principle of evidence law on admissibility of a piece of evidence is basically its relevance to the facts in issue. The three criteria that govern admissibility in evidence of a document in evidence, from a number of cases, are
i. whether the document is pleaded;
ii. whether the document is relevant to the issues being tried or in dispute between the parties, and whether it is admissible in law. That is, whether any rule of law or provision of statute renders it inadmissible in evidence.
See Okonkwo Okonji & Ors. V. George Njokanma & Ors. (1999) – 12 SC (Pt. 11) 150, (1999) 14 NWLR (Pt. 638) 250; Dunya V. Jimoh (1994)

20

3 NWLR (Pt. 334) 609 at 617.”
The same is true in criminal trial save to say that issue of pleading the document does not arise but the Prosecution must produce and serve copies of the documents it intends to rely upon to prosecute the Accused or Defendant on him or his learned Counsel in compliance with Section 36(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. See MUSA IBRAHIM V. THE STATE (2018) 1 NWLR (PART 1600) 279 AT 309 D – H TO 310 A – C per AKA’AHS, JSC who said:-
“The issues being agitated in this appeal came up in Okoye V. C.O.P. (2015) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1488) 276. In that case learned counsel for the appellant made an application to the Court to direct the prosecution to furnish the defence with all documents (including statements of witnesses, and police investigation report in the case) and he invoked the appellant’s constitutional right to fair trial as provided in Section 36(6)(b) 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The question was then posed: –
“When is an accused person entitled to facilities for the preparation of his defence as provided in Section 36(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)

21

amended) and what are the facilities?”
After adopting the definition of the word “facilities” as contained in Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Ed. at page 531, this Court held at page 296 –
“The facilities that must be afforded the accused person are the ‘resources’ or anything which would aid the accused person in preparing his defence to the crime for which he is charged. These no doubt include the statements of witnesses interviewed by the police in the course of their investigation which might have absolved the accused of any blame or which may assist the accused to subpoena such favourable witnesses that the prosecuting counsel may not wont to put forward to testify”.
It was decided in Udo V. State (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 82) 316 that Section 33(6)(d) of the 1979 Constitution (which is in pari material with Section 36(6)(b) and (d) of the 1999 Constitution) is a provision of “equal opportunities for both the prosecution and the defence”. Thus the prosecutor will not be allowed to have sole access to evidence. It was explained in Udo V. State supra that in a situation where the accused person does not know the cost he will

22

meet, while the prosecution knows everything concerning the case against the accused ahead of time would amount to nothing less than procedural inequality which is a gross violation of the principle of fair hearing or fair trial.”
The document sought to be tendered and its attachments were duly served on Respondent.
Now on documents that can be classified as Public Documents, Section 102 of the Evidence Act provides:-
“102. The following documents are public documents:-
(a) Documents forming the acts or records of the official acts of:-
(i) The sovereign authority;
(ii) Official bodies and tribunals; or
(iii) Public officers; legislative, judicial and executive, whether of Nigeria or elsewhere; and
(b) Public records kept in Nigeria of private document.”
Thus any letter, Petition or complaints written by an individual, persons or Organization to a public establishment like ICPC and received by its officials becomes a public document in the official records or records kept by the ICPC or any Government Parastatal or other organs of government to whom such letter, Petition or complaint is sent. Though the Petition in

23

this case was written by a Legal Firm on behalf of one MRS VICTORIA BOBAI to the Chairman of Independent Corrupt Practices & Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) is a private letter or document, the moment it was received by the ICPC the letter became public document in the official or public records of ICPC kept in its office in Nigeria of private document. See EZENWA ONWUZURUIKE V. DAMIAN EDOZIEM & ORS (2016) 6 NWLR (PART 1508) 215 AT 231 A – E per ONNOGHEN, JSC later CJN (RTD) who said:-
“In the case of Tabik Investment Ltd. V. G.T.B. (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 602) 1592 at 1607; (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1276) 240 @ page 261 -262 paras. H-A, this Court held that a private petition sent to the police, as in the instant case, formed part of the record of the police and consequently a public document within the provisions of Section 109 of the Evidence Act. The Court held as follows:
“By the provision of Section 318(h) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and Section 18(1) of the Interpretation Act, a police officer is a public officer and so all documents from the custody of the police, especially documents to be used in Court

24

are public documents.”
Finally, in the recent case of Aromolaran v. Agoro (2014) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1438) 153, this Court held that a letter written to the Governor of a State in his official capacity by a person who is not a government official, is public document because it is a public record kept in Nigeria of a private document which comes under the provisions of Section 109(b) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 112 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 (now Section 102 of the Evidence Act, 2011).
In that case, exhibit P7 was adjudged a public document and that there ought to have been a certification that was a true copy of the original to make it admissible in evidence.”
The learned Counsel to the Appellant is on solid ground in his submission that the Prosecution was entitled to tender the Certified True Copy of the Petition through the PW1 because it is a Public Document. I am of the solemn view that the Original of the Petition with its attachments need not be tendered. The Original Petition is also admissible. The Certified True Copy from the Original Petition is of equal status with the original Petition which is in custody of ICPC. There

25

is no legal impediment preventing the Prosecution from tendering the original of the Petition. The Appellant can also tender the Certified True Copy of the Petition and its attachments as was done in this case. Both are equally admissible under the Evidence Act, Sections 89(e) and (f) and 90(1)(c) thereof which provides: –
“89. Secondary evidence may be given of the existence condition or contents of a document when:-
(e) the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 102.
(f) the original is a document of which a Certified Copy is permitted by this Act or by any other law in force in Nigeria, to be given in evidence
90(1) The Secondary evidence admissible in respect of the Original documents referred to in the several paragraphs of Section 89 is as follows: –
(c) In paragraph (e) of (f) a certified copy of the document but no other kind of secondary evidence is admissible.”
The above is precisely the law governing admissibility of a public document. It cannot be circumvented nor can a party in litigation do otherwise.
See: –
1. THE HON. JUSTICE E. O. ARAKA V. THE STATE HON. JUSTICE DON EGBUE (2003) 17

26

NWLR (PT. 848) 1 AT 17C – 18A-H per NIKI TOBI, JSC of blessed memory;
2. PDP V. INEC & ORS (2014) 17 NWLR (PART 1437) 525 AT 562 F – H TO 563 A – E per OKORO, JSC who said:-
“There is no doubt that exhibit WO5 was written by Independent National Electoral Commission Commissioner and addressed to the 25th respondent who had custody of it up to the point of tendering same. Was this document of a character that ought to have been certified before tendering? Section 102 of the Evidence Act, 2011 makes the following documents public documents. It says:
“The following are public documents:
(a) documents forming the official acts or records of the official acts.
(i) of the sovereign authority:
(ii) of official bodies and Tribunals;
(iii) of public officers, legislative, Judicial and executive, whether of Nigeria or elsewhere.
(b) Public records kept in Nigeria of private documents.”
By Section 103 of the Act, all documents other than public documents are classified as private documents. Exhibit WO5, the subject of this issue was the original correspondence between the 2nd respondent and Independent National Electoral

27

Commission. The said letter was in the custody of the 25th respondent and remained so up to the point it was tendered. It is my view that there was no need to certify the original copy of the letter even though it was issued to him by a public officer. It is the public officer who keeps the original of a public document who certifies a copy of it which can be tendered where the original cannot be tendered. Put differently, the only categories of public documents that are admissible are either the original document itself or in the absence of such original certified copies and no other. See: Minister of Lands, Western Nigeria V. Azikiwe (1969) 1 All NLR 49: Nzekwu V. Nzekwu (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 104) 373: Iteogu V. L.P.D.C. (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614 at 634 paragraphs G-H, this Court per Onnoghen, JSC held as follows:
“While it is correct to say that the only secondary evidence of a public document admissible in evidence Is a certified true copy, the document in question were duly certified while those not so certified were original correspondences addressed from the Ministries of Defence and Works to the petitioner in person and were tendered by the

28

petitioner.”
(underlined mine)
3. IORLAIM IORAPUU V. THE STATE (2020) 1 NWLR (PART 1706) 391 AT 411 G – H TO 412 A – H per NWEKE, JSC who said;-
“In Emeka V. Chuba-Ikpeazu and Ors (2017) LPELR 41920 (SC) 61 – 65: F-C, (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1589) 345 this Court (per Nweze, JSC) explained that:
…although the original copies of public documents themselves are admissible, Onobruchere and Anor V. Esegine (1986) 1 NSCC 343, 350, (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 19) 799: Iteogu V. LPDC (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614, 634: the only pieces of secondary evidence in respect of the original of such public documents that are admissible are the certified copies thereof but no other secondary evidence. Minister of Lands W N. V. Azikiwe (1969) 1 All NLR 49: Onobruchere and Anor V. Esegine (supra): Araka V. Egbue (supra): SPDC V. Aswani Textile Industries Ltd. (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 180) 496, 50; Ojibah V. Ojibah (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 191) 296, 312: Nzekwu V. Nzekwu (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 104) 373: Tabik Investment Ltd. and Anor. V. Guarantee Trust Bank Plc (2011) 6 MJSC (Pt. 1) 1,21, (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1276) 240:Dagaci of Dere V. Dagaci of Ebwa (supra); Iteogu V. LPDC ​

29

(supra) 614, 634 etc.
Put differently, in the absence of the original documents themselves, only such properly certified copies are admissible as secondary copies of such a public document “but no other kind of secondary evidence.” G and T I. Ltd. and Anor. V. Witt and Bush Ltd. (2011) LPELR-1333 (SC) 42, C-E. (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 250) 500: Araka V. Egbue (supra): Minister of Lands, Western Nigeria V. Azikiwe (supra); Nzekwu V. Nzekwu (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 104) 373: Tabik Investment Ltd. and Anor V. Guarantee Trust Bank Plc (supra): Dagaci of Dere V. Dagaci of Ebwa (supra); Iteogu V. LPDC (supra) etc. (Italics supplied for emphasis)
His Lordship continued thus:
The whole essence of the Court’s insistence on the scrupulous adherence to the ( ) certification requirement of public documents is to vouchsafe their authenticity vis-a-vis the original copies, to third F parties, G and T I. Ltd. and Anor V. Witt and Bush Ltd (2011) LPELR-1333 (SC) 42, C-E; (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt.1250) 500. That explains why, in the absence of the original document, only such properly certified copies are admissible as secondary copies of public documents but no

30

other kind of secondary evidence, G and T. I. Ltd. and Anor V. Witt and Bush Ltd. (supra); Araka V. Egbue (supra); Minister of Lands, Western Nigeria V. Azikiwe (supra): Nzekwu V. Nzekwu (supra): Tabik Investment Ltd. and Anor V. Guaranty Trust Bank Plc (supra): Dagaci of Dere V. Dagaci of Ebwa (2006) 30 WRN 1, (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt 979) 382; Iteogu V. LPDC (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614 etc (Italics supplied for emphasis).”
4. GAMBO IDI V. THE STATE (2018) 4 NWLR (PART 1610) 359 AT 386 B – H TO 387 A – B per OGUNBIYI, JSC who said:-
“Also on the admissibility of exhibit B, which the appellant’s counsel submits is wrongful for absence of certification, I hold the view that the argument is totally misconceived. In other words, and as rightly posited by the respondent’s counsel, the document exhibit 8 tendered and admitted at the trial is original in nature and requires no certification as held in the case of PDP V. INEC (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1437) 525. Also the case of Daggash V. Bulama (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 892) 144.
Section 85 of the Evidence Act has stated clearly that documents may be proved by either primary or secondary evidence, and that

31

the primary evidence is the document itself whilst the secondary evidence is the certified true copy of the original, where the document is a public document within the meaning of the Act. I have stated earlier that exhibit B was the original document rendered at the trial in line with the case of Tabik Invest. Ltd. V. Guaranty Trust Bank Plc (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1276) 240. It is the appellants argument that the Court must not consider the originality of exhibit 8, but rather that it is subject to the exception to the general rule and thus relegating it to a position of being secondary document.
As rightly submitted and argued by the respondent’s counsel, Section 83 of the Evidence Act provided for admissibility of documentary evidence. The case of Tabik Investment Ltd V. GTB Plc supra, cited by the appellant is to the extent that documents emanating from the Nigerian Police, especially documents to be used in Court are public documents, which only certified true copies are admissible in evidence. The foregoing requirement does not refer to the document contained in the case diary, which is a subject and result of investigation. By Section 127(1) and

32

(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, contents of a case diary which includes exhibit H “8” (which was a document obtained in the course of investigation) are a primary document. They are original as provided in Section 83 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended) and are admissible in evidence.
Therefore the reliance made on the case of Tabik Inv. Ltd. V. GTB by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant does not help their case.
Further still and contrary to the contention argued on behalf of the appellant, is the case of Kwara State Ministry of Agriculture V. S.G.P. Nig Ltd (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 575) at 583 per Ogebe, JCA wherein it was held that:-
“A public document is admissible as primary evidence without certification.”
The authorities are in unison that where original of a Public Document is tendered, it is admissible and where original is not produced but a Certified True Copy of it is produced it is equally admissible. The Certified True Copy of the document cannot be rejected on the untenable ground that the original ought to be produced as the learned trial Judge has erroneously held.
​It is also important to mention that

33

the document purportedly rejected is also admissible under Section 27 of the Independent Corrupt Practices & Other Related Offences Commission which provides in full as follows:-
(1) Every report relating to the commission of an offence under this Act may be made orally or in writing to an officer of the Commission, and if made orally shall be reduced into writing and read over to the person making the report, and every such report, shall be signed or thumb-printed by the person making it. Where the person making the report is an illiterate the officer obtaining the report shall endorse that fact on the report together with a statement of the effect that it was read over and interpreted to the maker.
(2) Every report, whether in writing or reduced into writing, shall be entered in a book kept at the office of the Commission and there shall be appended to such entry the date and hour at which such report was made.
(3) Where an Officer of the Commission has reason to suspect the commission of an offence under this Act following a report made under sub-section (1) or in formation otherwise received by him, he shall cause investigation to be made

34

and for such purpose may exercise all the powers of investigation provided for under this Act or any other law.
(4) A report made under subsection (1) of this section shall not be disclosed by any person to any person other than officers of the Commission or the Attorney-General until the accused person has been arrested or charged to Court for an offence under this Act or any other written law arising from such report.
(5) Any document certified by any officer of the Commission entry under subsection (2) in respect of a report under subsection (1) shall be admissible as evidence of the contents of the original and of the time, place and manner in which the report was recorded.
Section 27 subsection 5 of the ICPC Act makes it abundantly clear that Certified True Copy of any report or any document emanating from the office of ICPC shall be admitted in evidence as evidence of contents of the original document or Report.
The Petition in this case which is contained on pages 13 – 32 of the record of appeal was in form of complaint and a copy of it and the annextures were all served on the Respondent.
​The Appellant has fulfilled all

35

conditions precedent to the tendering and admissibility of the said document or Petition which was wrongly rejected by the lower Court.
Where a document sought to be tendered is relevant and satisfy the conditions for its admissibility in evidence it will be admitted by a Court or Tribunal seised of the matter. See the case of ALBAN AJAEGBO V. THE STATE (2018) 11 NWLR (PART 631) 484 AT 506G per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC who said:-
“The law is well settled that the cardinal consideration in the admissibility of a document is relevance. Once a document is relevant to the facts in issue and is legally admissible, it would be admitted in evidence. See: Fawehinmi V. N.B.A. (No. 2) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 105) 558; B. O. N. v. Saleh (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 618) 331:, Torti V. Ukpabi (1984) 1 SCNLR 224; Okoye V. Obiaso (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1175) 145.”
I am not unmindful of the shifting argument of the Respondent who in this Court agree that a part of the document that is pages 1 – 3 thereof are admissible because ICPC was in custody BUT that the attachments which are most Tellers evidencing banking transactions cannot be admitted along because they are in custody of a Bank.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

36

I am of the firm view that the argument is misplaced. The document was sought to be tendered as a single document. This is because the letter made reference to them to support the complaints against the Respondent. That is the form in which it should be tendered and admitted in evidence. The weight to be attached to the Petition and its attachment will be determined when the learned trial Judge comes to take decision on the merit of the case. Admissibility is one thing while weight or probative value to be attached to the document is another matter. See:-
1. UTC NIGERIA PLC V. ALHAJI WAHAB LAWAL (2014) NWLR (PT. 400) 221 AT 244 F – 6 per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC;
2. ACN V. LAMIDO & ORS (2012) 8 NWLR (PART 1303) 560 AT 592 D per FABIYI JSC who said:-
“This is so as there is a dichotomy between admissibility of documents and the probative value to be placed an them. While admissibility is based on relevance probative value depends not only on relevance but also on proof. Evidence has probative value of it tends to prove an issue.”
All the arguments relied upon by the Respondent are not the reasons given by the lower Court for the rejection of the

37

documents.
The document was not rejected because of the facts that Bank Tellers ought to be in custody of the Bank in case of the need for certification. It was not also rejected because of disparity in the pages of document(s) tendered and the document served on the Respondent.
The learned trial Judge contradicted himself in several respects. In one breath he opined:-
“I think in the circumstance that the documents sought to be tendered is within the form in which they can be admissible.”
Meaning that the documents are admissible that is the Petition with its attachments only for the trial Judge to capitulate when he held “this document has failed the twin test of relevancy and proper form” and thus rejected same.
From all I have said and the applicable laws referred to the learned trial Judge has no reason for the rejection of the document (s). See:-
1. EMEKA V. CHUBA-IKPEAZU (2017) 15 NWLR (PART 1589) 345 AT 394 E – H TO 895A – C per NWEZE, JSC;
2. MR. DEBO O. ENILOLOBO V. NPDC & ANOR (2019) 18 NWLR (PART 1703) 192 – C per M. D. MUHAMMED, JSC;
3. ISA KASSIM V. THE STATE (2018) 4 NWLR (PART 160) (PART 1608) 20 AT 39 F

38

– G and 41F – H TO 44 A – H per EKO, JSC.
On page 54 C – D of KASSIM V. STATE SUPRA, OGUNBIYI, JSC had this to say:-
“By the combined effect of Sections 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act, 2011, documents (public or private) may be produced in Court by tendering either the original of the document itself or the copy thereof known as secondary evidence; but a party relying on secondary evidence of a public document must produce the certified true copy and no other copy thereof is admissible. See Kwara State Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources & Ors. Societe Generale Bank Nig. Ltd. (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 575) 574: Daggash V. Bulama (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 892) 144: P.D.P. V. INEC (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1437) 525.”
4. OGUNLEYE SANMI V. THE STATE (2019) 13 NWLR (PART 1690) 53 AT 584 G – H TO 585 A per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC who said:-
“I agree with my learned brother, that not only was there sufficient credible evidence before the Court as to why the original copy of exhibit A could not be tendered, the certified photocopy tendered met the requirements of Section 89 (e) of the Evidence Act, 2011 which permits the tendering of

39

secondary evidence of a public document. Section 90(c) of the Evidence Act is emphatic that the only type of secondary evidence admissible in respect of a public document as a certified true copy thereof, as provided for in Section 87 of the Act. See: Udo V. The State (2016) LPELR – 40721 (SC) 6) 12 -13 B-C, (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1525) 1; Araka V. Egbue (2003) LPELR- 532 (SC) @ 14 A -D; (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 848) 1, Iteogu V. LPDC (2009) 12 SC (Pt. 1) 1, (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt 1171) 614.
Exhibit A was therefore properly admitted in evidence. The fact that the appellant claimed that exhibit A was not his statement does not affect its admissibility. The Court is entitled to admit it an evidence and consider it along with other evidence led in the case in determining the weight to attach to it.
Consequently, the lone issue distilled for determination of the appeal is hereby resolved in Appellant’s favour. The Appellants appeal is quite meritorious and it is allowed.

​The Ruling of the High Court of Justice Federal Capital Territory delivered on 11th October, 2016 by HON. JUSTICE C. U. NDUKWE rejecting the Certified True Copy of Petition titled

40

“Complaint of Fraudulently Receiving of Money by a Public Officer Sergeant Hassana Danladi” along with its attachments and marking same as rejected is HEREBY SET ASIDE.

The learned trial Judge shall receive and admit the said Petition with its attachments in evidence as an exhibit in the criminal proceeding – FCT/HC/CR/55/2015; FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V. HASSANA DANLADI (F).

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the judgment just delivered by my Learned brother, LORD JUSTICE PETER OLABISI IGE, JCA.
I agree with the reasoning, conclusions and orders therein.

YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in advance the Judgment just delivered by my brother PETER OLABISI IGE, JCA and I am in total agreement with the reasoning and resolution of the lone issue adopted for determination. My brother in a succinct and concise manner resolved the issue. Let me just say a word in support of the resolution.

Generally, admissibility of evidence whether documentary or oral is premised on relevance, see the case of TORTI V. UKPABI & ORS (1984) LPELR-3259 (SC) where it said:

41

“I think that admissibility should be based on relevance and not proper custody. Once a matter, be a document or oral evidence is relevant, it is admissible. Proper custody only raises the issue of presumption, or, to put it more clearly, the weight to be attached to the evidence, documentary or otherwise, after admission. For evidence, documentary or otherwise to be admissible, it is sufficient that proper ground of its relevance is laid.” Per ESO, JSC.
See also NATSAHA V. STATE (2017) LPELR-42359 (SC); ACB LTD V. GWAGWADA (1994) 5 NWLR (PT 342) 25 and DR IMORO KUBOR & ANOR V. HON. SERIAKE HENRY DICKSON & ORS (2012) LPELR-9817 (SC).

The original document in issue here is in the custody of the Appellant, it can decide to tender it in its original form or a certified true copy, the document having transformed into an official document. It must be restated that admissibility is different from the question of weight to be attached to the document during evaluation.
I also allow the Appeal and abide by the Orders made in the lead Judgment.

42

Appearances:

ENOSA OMOGBIBO, Esq. For Appellant(s)

SHADRACK MOWO YACIM, Esq. For Respondent(s)