By Castro Ginigeme, J.D. (m.p.k)
The publication and launch of Justice (Dr.) Alaba Ajileye’s second edition of his classic work on Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011, Electronic Evidence in Nigeria, was one of those “must-attend” events of the legal year 2026.
Together with the newly released Compendium of Cases, these two books are vastly deeper, more resource-rich, better illustrated, and infinitely more comprehensive in their analysis of all the requirements and conditions for the admissibility of electronic evidence.
Launched in the sumptuous hall of the National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, the event did not disappoint. For a technical legal text, the high-caliber attendance was remarkable. Representatives came from across the country: the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, academia, industry, security agencies, the judiciary, the Bar, and even members of the general public.
Several key players in the Nigerian economy were in attendance or sent powerful representatives — Alhaji Aliko Dangote, Chief Emeka Offor, Tony Elumelu, etc. The Chairman of the EFCC attended, as did the Director-General of the DSS and the Chairman of the ICPC.
From the bench: several Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, several Justices of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judges from state judiciaries across the country, the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court, Hon. Justice Husseini Baba-Yusuf, and the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Hon. Justice John Terhemba Tsoho.
There is no question: the three books on Electronic Evidence in Nigeria authored by Justice (Dr.) Omolaye-Ajileye — the 1st Edition, the 2nd Edition, and the Compendium of Cases with case-by-case commentaries — now represent the highest authority on Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011. That is, computer-generated evidence.
Why the Books Matter
The books are a practitioner’s delight, a “must-have.” In the 21st-century adversarial common law system, most evidence presented at trial now originates from computers.
Secondly, Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 is about admissibility, not weight. It determines whether computer-generated evidence gets in the door, not how much credence the court ultimately gives it.
Finally, Section 84 is an exception to the hearsay rule. “Hearsay” means “an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted” [s. 37, Evidence Act, 2011]. Where evidence is tendered for another purpose — state of mind, identification, prior consistent statement, etc. — it is admissible.
Section 84 is specifically concerned with evidence generated through the computer: personal computers, data, soft and hard copies, digital cameras, hardware, networks, internet, intranet, email, laptops, cell phones, SIM cards, digital audio players, websites, cloud storage, etc.
As the author makes clear:
- Section 84(1) addresses the broad spectrum of issues relating to the admissibility of a statement contained in a document produced by a computer.
- Section 84(2)(a)-(e) enumerates the conditions that must be satisfied before such a statement or electronic record becomes admissible.
- Section 84(4) requires a “CERTIFICATE” signed by a person occupying a responsible position to authenticate the document or electronic record.
The _Compendium of Cases 2026 gives the courtroom practitioner a rich galaxy of case law covering every nuance of admissibility. It goes further with detailed, case-by-case commentaries on requirements, conditions, and relevance. It even analyzes the effect of provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 on the application of Section 84. It is as if the author set out to cite every relevant case and explain its limits on Section 84.
Notes from the Launch
Two moments stood out.
First, the Chairman of the EFCC raised eyebrows by announcing that the Agency is now researching “AI” — Artificial Intelligence. With respect, this is a book about Section 84: evidence produced through the computer. The author has laboured to explain the meaning, conditions, limitations, and method of presenting and recognizing computer-generated documents. It is not about EFCC’s exploration of internet tools for law enforcement. That said, AI processes are themselves computer-generated and thus squarely fall within Section 84.
Second, former AGF Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, appeared to ask the author to help recover Nigeria’s stolen billions. It was a strange expectation at a book launch on electronic evidence. Even if related, why should Justice Ajileye be burdened with that task — by a country that has hardly respected his monumental contributions to justice delivery in a critical area of Nigerian law?
A Final Word on Merit
I recall, with deep personal sadness, that Justice Alaba Ajileye was nominated No. 1 for elevation to the Court of Appeal. That nomination followed the publication of the first edition of this book in 2018. At the last minute, President Muhammadu Buhari substituted his name with that of a “Kadi” from Niger State.
The presidential action was, to put it mildly, egregious — dismissive, offensive, insulting, and tribalistic.
One hopes Nigeria will finally learn to recognise and reward brilliance, regardless of tribe or religion. A country thrives and triumphs when it puts merit above all other considerations.
