A Federal High Court in Abuja trying the case of alleged offensive posts made by Omoyele Sowore against President Bola Tinubu has rejected some exhibits Sowore wanted to render before it.
The court, presided over by Justice Mohammed Umar ruled that the exhibits were uncertified.
Sowore is facing cybercrime charges the Department of State Services (DSS) filed against him.
The security agency is prosecuting him on a two-count charge for calling President Tinubu a “criminal” in a post he shared on social media platforms.
At the resumed proceedings, the politician and activist sought to tender some documents in evidence through his third witness.
In an application made through his team of lawyers led by Mr. Olumide Fusika, SAN, Sowore disclosed that the documents he sought to have admitted in evidence contained a summary of proceedings featuring the testimony of a witness of the DSS codenamed XYZ.
The record of proceedings was accompanied by letters the defendant urged the court to admit in evidence to strengthen his defence.
He moved to tender the exhibits through a lawyer, Wayne Chikezie Elijah, who appeared before the court as a defence witness.
However, counsel to the DSS, Mr. Akinlolu Kehinde, SAN, challenged the admissibility of the documents, which he noted were not certified.
The prosecution counsel contended that since the exhibits contained public documents, they ought to be properly certified to meet the admissibility threshold.
READ RELATED STORY
Sowore seeks review of Kano cannabis verdict, calls seven-year jail term & jungle justice
Makinde, Sowore, PDP react as Oyo pupils regain freedom
Court restores Sowore bail in cybercrime trial
He therefore urged the court to reject the documents for the defendant’s failure to comply with provisions of the Evidence Act.
Despite the argument of Sowore’s lawyer that the documents, which he said came from the court’s records, needed no certification, he was overruled by trial Justice Mohammed Umar.
Justice Umar held that the documents came from the custody of a counsel who claimed he had earlier appeared for the defendant in the matter.
“The reason for certification is to be sure the document has not been tampered with. Having been in the custody of the said counsel, how is the court sure that the document has not been tampered with?” Justice Umar queried.
He refused the defendant’s application and marked the documents as rejected.
