By Kenneth Atavti
A Magistrates’ Court sitting in Zuba, Abuja yesterday admitted two discs from a CCTV footage and Certificate of Compliance as evidence in the trial of embattled Senator Elisha Abbo.
The police had charged Abbo on July 8, 2019, for criminal force and assault which is contrary to section 263 and 264 of penal code law.
Magistrate Abdullahi Illelah held that the documents tendered were relevant and admissible in evidence.
”It is left to the court to determine if a particular document or exhibit tendered before it complies with the requirement of the law or not.
”The court hereby admits the statements of Sen. Elisha Abbo and medical report which the nominal complainant obtained from Mega EyeSight as exhibits in the trial,” he held.
Illelah adjourned the matter until January 9, 2020, for the continuation of hearing while the bail granted to Abbo continues on the same terms and conditions.
Earlier, the prosecution witness, Mr James Idachaba tendered the exhibits through the second prosecution witness ASP Mary Daniel.
The witness told the court that she was attached to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), FCT Police Command and was the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) in the case against the defendant (Sen. Abbo).
Daniel alleged that on May 14, the case of criminal force and assault contrary to section 262, 263 and 264 of the Penal Code Law was reported at Maitama Divisional Station by the nominal complainant Ms Anyata Wormate.
She added that the case was transferred to the FCT Police Command and it was assigned to her to investigate, subsequently she went to the scene of the crime at Pleasure Chest Shop, FA45, Banex Plaza.
According to her, the shop was then locked and one Mr Onyekachi Chukwu told her that the owner of the shop travelled out of Abuja.
“On July 3, an invitation letter was sent to the nominal complainant and the defendant through the Clerk of the National Assembly.
“On July 4, a voluntary explanatory statement was obtained from the nominal complainant and the defendant also provides his statement under caution and later the defendant was later granted bail on the same day,’’ she said.
The witness told the court that the nominal complainant brought CCTV footage discs with a certificate of compliance and forensic analysis could not be obtained because the camera where the video was extracted was with one Kemi.
Daniel added that all efforts to get across to Kemi (a sales girl in the shop where the incidence happened) proved abortive.
The witness said that she also went back to Maitama Divisional Police office to obtain the statement of Mrs Alaba Udeme the mother of the nominal complainant.
She added that she went to the mega eyesight to confirm whether or not the nominal complainant was treated there, and the clinic confirmed to the witness that the complainant was treated there.
The Defense counsel Mr Adegbite Adeniyi objects to the admissibility of the discs, medical certificate from mega eyesight when the prosecution counsel (Idachaba) attempted to tender the documents.
Adeniyi told the court that the medical report certificate sought to be tendered did not comply with the provision of section 257 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
He added that the CCTV footage discs also did not comply with the provisions of section 84 sub B and 84 subs 5 (A) of the Evidence Act.
In his response, the prosecution counsel urged the court to discountenance the objection of the defence stressing that the objections were misconceived because the witness was not the maker of the documents as proscribed by law.
