By Bamidele Kolawole

|

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 902(6), newspapers and periodicals are self-authenticating; in other words, they are admissible into evidence without a writer, editor, or other witness testifying to their authenticity. Newspaper, like every document in law, is an admissible document.

The issue of admissibility of Newspaper as Exhibit to establish Evidence in Litigations is guided by Sections 83,85,86,87,88of the EVIDENCE ACT,2011(As Amended).

It must be noted that original copy of a Newspaper will qualify as PRIMARY type of DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. The sections of the Evidence Act cited above, among other things, talks about Admissibility of Documentary Evidences, Primary/ Secondary Evidences and Proving the Contents of Documentary Evidences.

 It must be noted, that newspapers may not qualify as Public Document due to the fact that sect.102 did not expressly classify Newspaper as such, however in my opinion, Newspaper houses or Brands created by Legislative exercise, such as SKETCH which belong to ODU’A investment, created by the collective Legislative ratification of the then Western States governments integration Policy, through business drive in the ’70s and THE HOPE NEWSPAPER of OWENA PRESS, a State establishment created with Legislative approval qualifies as Public Document.

In the case of AGBAI Vs I.N.E.C. (2009) ALL FWLR (PT.449) 594 C.A. the Court agrees that a mere “PRESS RELEASE”, after Scrutinizing the Document in line with section 111 (now 104) of the Evidence Act and made Pronouncement on same for not conforming with the standard required, is a Public Document.

 Like every Documentary Evidence, for a Newspaper to be admissible, counsel and litigants must strictly follow the Provisions of Sects. 83 and 88 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

First, it is advisable to certify a true copy (CTC) of that very Edition of the Newspaper, then counsel can use the Certified Original copy in his Evidence-in-Chief.

A photocopy of that Edition could be used as well, provided you do a CTC and equally lay a good foundation as to the existence of the original Publication.

Admissibility is the concept in Law of Evidence that determines whether or not evidence can be received in court. A piece of evidence is said to be admissible if it is allowed by the court. In any proceeding, a court is entitled to admit and act only on evidence that is admissible in law.

Generally, three main criteria govern admissibility of document in evidence. They are: (i) whether or not the document is pleaded, (ii) whether or not the document is relevant to the issues being tried in the case (iii) whether or not the document is admissible in law. To admit a document in evidence, the court will consider all the rules of exclusion and decide whether there are grounds for which the court cannot look at the evidence at all.

Now, the question that is begging for answer is; are newspaper publications admissible in evidence? Are there conditions to be fulfilled before such document could be tendered and admissible in evidence? Generally, newspaper reports are not admissible of the fact contained in them.

 The content of such reports are considered as heresay by virtue of section 37 of the Evidence Act, 2011 because they reports statement of person who is not the maker. Ojukwu vs Yaradua (2009) ALL FWLR (pt 482) 1065. For the statement contained in a newspaper to have any evidential value, the maker of the statement must be called to testify.

So, when tendered and admitted it will be evidence that the publication was made and not proof that the statement contained in the said report is true. Another important question to ask is, does a newspaper needs to be certified before it could be tendered in evidence? There are divergent views on this point.

While some are of the view that a newspaper being a public document needs certification before it can be tendered in court, others do not think it is necessary to certify a newspaper before it could be tendered as evidence in court.

 The former opinion is informed by the provision of section 4(1) National Library Act which requires the publishers of books in Nigeria to deliver within one month after publication three copies of the book which shall be kept at the Natioal Library for permanent preservation.

 Books in this context include newspapers. Sec.4(7) c of the National Library Act. The other view which I personally subscribe to is that a newspaper needs no certification to be used as evidence in court proceeding contending that a newpaper which is a product of private establishment does not fall under “official act or records of sovereign authority” as described by section 102 of the Act.

I also subscribe to the view that the only time a newspaper needs to be certified is when the copy sought to be tendered is a photocopy. Newspapers are products of a uniform process to which section 86 (4) of the evidence Act applies which makes them a primary document that could be tendered in proof of the content therein. see Section 85 of the Evidence Act.

Basically, the admissibility of documents are governed by the Evidence Act, 2011 and where a document fails to satisfy just a condition or conditions for it’s admissibility, such documents becomes a worthless piece of paper having not satisfy the requirements for it’s admissibility as laid down by the Evidence Act, 2011.

Sections 102 & 103 of the Evidence Act, 2011 defines public and private documents while Sections 86 & 87 of the Act borders on Primary and Secondary Evidence. Where a document is produced in it’s original form, it is regarded as Primary Evidence but where duplicates copy are produced from the Original/Primary Evidence, they are categorized as *Secondary Evidence*. Furthermore, Section 102 of the Evidence Act defines public documents as:

1. The Sovereign authority

2. Official bodies and tribunals; or

3. Publis officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of Nigerian or elsewhere; and

b. Public records kept in Nigeria of private document.

While Section 103 defines private document as “all documents other than public documents are private documents. It follows therefore that any document that doesn’t fall in the category of documents listed under Section 102 are private documents.

According to Section 85 of the Evidence Act, the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. However, before a secondary evidence of a public document is tendered, the certified true copy of same must be produced otherwise such document will not be admitted.

A Newspaper publication is one of the germane documents that could be categorized in law to be a Public document which must be certified before it can be admitted, where it is a secondary evidence.

Furthermore, by virtue of Section 4(1) and 7(c) of the National Library Act, copies of newspaper publication must be deposited by the Publisher at the National Library to preserved it. Which is the more reason why Newspaper publication is a Public document within the meaning of Section 102 of the Evidence Act.

Thus, before a secondary copy of a newspaper publication is tendered in court, it must have been certified otherwise, it would not admitted as an evidence during the trial in a case.

Position of the law on admissibility of newspaper publication.  It is the position of law that once the copy of a newspaper produced is the original copy of the newspaper, including but not limited to the exact copy purchased from a vendor, it is admissible in evidence without any need for further certification.?

The above conclusion seems to me to flow directly from the succinct provisions of Section 86 (4) of the Evidence Act 2011, which provides as follows: “Where a number of documents have all been made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography, photography, computer or other electronic or mechanical process, each shall be primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but where they are all copies of a common original, they shall not be primary evidence of the contents of the original

 In my view this position appears to be the only logical legal inference deducible from a proper construction and combined effects of Sections 85, 86, 87, 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act 2011 and Sections 2(2)(a), 4(1) and (7) (c) of the National Library Act, CAP N 56 Laws of the Federation 1990. Now, by Section 4(1) of the National Library Act, it is provided as follows: “the publishers of every book published in Nigeria shall within one month after the publication, deliver at his own expense to the National Library three copies of the book, two of which shall be kept in the National Library for permanent preservation and one of which shall be sent by the Director to the Ibadan University library.”

In the light of the above therefore, it is my view that it is not intended that the National Library shall become the authenticating body for original copies of newspapers and books kept in its custody except in cases of photocopies of original copies of newspapers and books kept with the National Library that would required to be authenticated to confirm it as the true copy of the copies kept with the National Library.

Thus, once the copy of a newspaper produced is the original copy of the newspaper, including but not limited to the exact copy purchased from a vendor, it is admissible in evidence without any need for further certification.?

The above conclusion seems to me to flow directly from the succinct provisions of Section 86 (4) of the Evidence Act 2011, which provides as follows: “Where a number of documents have all been made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography, photography, computer or other electronic or mechanical process, each shall be primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but where they are all copies of a common original, they shall not be primary evidence of the contents of the original.”

The above position of the law has received judicial approval in the recent case of Kassim V. State (2017) LPELR – 42586 (SC), where the Supreme Court per Kekere – Ekun, JSC., had opined and held inter alia thus: ?”

 I therefore agree with the Court that where the original copy of a document is available, it is admissible without the requirement of certification.” Also in Uwua Udo V. The State (2016) 2 – 3 SC (Pt. 111) 29, the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear in holding that even a public document tendered in its original form is admissible in evidence by virtue of Sections 85 and 86 of the Evidence Act 2011. It follows therefore, in my view, and I so hold firmly that a newspaper produced in its original form is the primary document produced and thus needs no further certification to be admissible in evidence.

Admission of newspaper publications is talking about the admissibility of newspaper publications in our courts, admissibility of documents is an important aspect of the adjudication in Nigeria. This is so because what the court can see will require no other further proof or persuasion, therefore, this is one of the numerous methods of evidence available to a court of law, this aspect involves documents, so it is referred to as documentary evidence in law.

Section 20 of the Evidence Act defines admission as a statement which can be oral/ documentary, or conduct which suggests any inference as to any fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and in the circumstances mentioned in this Act. Documents fall under two categories; it can either be public or private document.

Therefore, newspaper will fall under the public document which is defined in Section 102 of the Evidence Act (EA, 2011, the original is submitted to the National Library. It therefore needs to be certified by the officer of the National Library Board, otherwise, it will be rendered inadmissible.

In the case of TABIK INVESTMENT LTD v. GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC (2011), the Supreme Court emphatically held that before a public document can be tendered and admitted by the court, it must be certified. A public document is certified if:

It is paid for

There is an endorsement or certificate that it is a true copy of the original

The endorsement or certificate is dated and signed by the officer responsible for certification with his name and official tittle.

It is sealed in cases in which the officer is entitled by law to use a seal. SEE: ANAMBRA STATE GOVERNMENT v. GEMEX INTERNATIONAL LTD (2012) 1 NWLR (PT 1281) 333 AT 359.

A newspaper is produced by a computer, so it falls under the computer generated documents, so we see: Section 84(1) of the Evidence Act, the admissibility of computer generated documents is subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions:

Section 84(1) of EA (2011):

In any proceedings, a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions in Subsection (2) of this Section are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question. 84 (2): The conditions referred to in Subsection (1) of this Section are; (a) that the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by anybody, whether corporate or not, or by any individual; (b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived; (c) that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents, and (d) that the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities. Evidence of the functionality of the computer as required by Section 84 is not exclusive to a certificate of compliance/identification. Such evidence can be given orally by calling a witness who is the maker of the document and note that where a maker of the newspaper gives an oral evidence, tendering the paper may be quite unnecessary. Finally, section 83 of the Evidence Act talks about the admissibility of Documentary Evidence generally: (83)1.

2. In any proceeding, the court may at any stage of the proceeding, if having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is satisfied that undue delay or expense would otherwise be caused, order that such a statement as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall be admissible as evidence or may, without any such order having been made admit such a statement in evidence notwithstanding that- a. the maker of the statement is available but is not called as a witness and b. the original document is not produced, if in lieu of it there is produced a copy of the original document or of the material part of it certified to be a true copy in such manner as may be specified in the order or as the court may approve, as the case may be.

3. Nothing in this section shall render admissible as evidence any statement made by a person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a dispute is to any fact which the statement might tend to establish.

 4. For the purposes of this section, a statement in a document shall not be deemed to have been made by a person unless the document or the material part of it was written, made or produced by him with his own hand, or was signed or initiated by him or otherwise recognized by him in writing as one for the accuracy of which he is responsible.

If the above condition as laid down is strictly followed,then, any newspaper can be found admissible in our courts.

I will like to correct an erroneous assumption that newspaper publication is always tainted with lies, this is not correct as journalists do a lot of diligent investigations before coming out to furnish the public with their findings. The veracity of every statement or information gathered must be proved before one starts spreading the fake news, hence, one will become a rumour peddler.

A newspaper is classified as a document and a document can be tendered in the court of law but there are steps to be adhered to as stipulated in our Evidence Act of 2011 before it can be admissible.

Evidence is used to prove or disprove a statement or fact or any document as the case may be. A newspaper is produced by a computer, so it falls under the computer generated documents, so we see:

Section 84(1) of the Evidence Act, the admissibility of computer generated documents is subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions. May I reproduce the said provision for convenience:

84(1): In any proceedings, a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions in Subsection (2) of this Section are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question.

84 (2): The conditions referred to in Subsection (1) of this Section are;

(a) that the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by anybody, whether corporate or not, or by any individual;

(b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived;

(c) that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents, and

(d) that the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.

Finally, section 83 of the Evidence Act talks about the admissibility of Documentary Evidence generally:

(83)1. In a proceeding where direct oral evidence of a fact would be admissible, any statement made by a person in a document which seems to establish that fact shall on production of the original document, be admissible as evidence of that fact if the following conditions are satisfied-Provided that the condition that the maker of the statement shall be called as a witness need not be satisfied if he is dead, or unfit by reason of his bodily or mental condition to attend as a witness, or if he is outside Nigeria and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance, or if all reasonable efforts to find him have been made without success.

a. If the maker of the statement either-

(i). had personal knowledge of the matters dealt with by the statement

or

(ii). where the document in question is or forms part of a record purporting to be a continuous record made the statement (in so far as the matters dealt with by it are not within his personal knowledge) in the performance of a duty to record information supplied to him by a person who had, or might reasonably be supposed to have personal knowledge of those matters and

b. if the maker of the statement is called as a witness in the proceeding:

2. In any proceeding, the court may at any stage of the proceeding, if having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is satisfied that undue delay or expense would otherwise be caused, order that such a statement as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall be admissible as evidence or may, without any such order having been made admit such a statement in evidence notwithstanding that-

a. the maker of the statement is available but is not called as a witness and

b. the original document is not produced, if in lieu of it there is produced a copy of the original document or of the material part of it certified to be a true copy in such manner as may be specified in the order or as the court may approve, as the case may be.

Newspaper, like every document in law, is an admissible document. Equally, like every document, admissibility of newspaper in evidence is subject to some defined conditions.

By the provisions of the National Library Act, every publisher is mandated to keep at least, three copies of book or publications published in Nigeria in the National Library for public use.

By this provision, newspaper can rightly, for the purpose of admissibility in law, be categorised as public document. The legal consequence of this categorisation is that for a newspaper to be admitted in evidence, the legal requirement for admissibility of public document must be met.

Generally, all original documents are admissibility in law if other conditions precedent are satisfied. However, from the decision of our courts, for newspaper to be admissible, it must be certified by the Library Board regardless of whether it is original or not. It is assumed that the original is the copy submitted to the National Library. Hence, same must be clearly certified by the officer of the Board in accordance with Evidence Act.

One may however ask whether privately published newspapers equally fall within the definition of public documents which require certification for it admissibility.

There are split decisions of our court. However, it has been argued that the decision which makes privately published newspaper a public document is more in accord with our law.

 This is because, even a privately published newspaper is required to be submitted to the National Library. For it admissibility, it must be produced from proper custody, hence the need to certify same for its admissibility.

It is therefore my conclusion that newspaper, like any other document as defined by Evidence Act, 2011, is admissible in evidence subject to meeting required conditions provided by law.