Lagos — Several decades after the world embraced information technology in every area of life, some Nigerian laws are so archaic that a mere computer print-out of banking transactions cannot be tendered before the courts as evidence.

Yesterday, the reality came home in the ongoing trial of former Minister of Aviation, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, at the Federal High Court in Lagos as the Justice Ahmed Ramat Mohammed rejected the computer print-out of his statement of account sought to be tendered by a bank manager as an inadmissible document.

Justice Mohammed, in his ruling, said a statement of account produced by way of computer printout was not admissible in evidence under the Sections 97(1)(h) and (2)(e) of the Evidence Act even if the said statement of account was relevant to the proceedings.

Section 97(1) states: "Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases - (h) when the document is an entry in a banker's book. (2) The secondary evidence admissible in respect of the original documents referred to in the several paragraphs of subsection (1) of this section is a follows - (e) in paragraph (h) the copies cannot be received as evidence unless it be first proved that the book in which the entries copied were made was at the time of making one of the ordinary books of the bank, and that the entry was made in the usual and ordinary course of business, and that the book is in the custody and control of the bank, which proof may be given orally or by affidavit by a partner or officer of the bank, and that the copy has been examined with the original entry and is correct, which proof must be given by some person who has examined the copy with the original entry and may be given orally or by affidavit.

Relying on previous ruling of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, (in the case of UBA Plc vs S. A. F. P. U (2004) 3 NWLR Part 861 page 516 at page 543 paragraph A-G and supported by Supreme Court decision in Yesufu vs ACB Ltd (1976), ANLP Part 1, 328) the judge ruled that computer printout document cannot be admissible on evidence as an entry in a banker's book.

Fani-Kayode, who is facing a 47-count charge of money laundering preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), was accused of receiving cash in excess of N500,000 and paying same into his personal investment account, totalling over N231 million.

He was also accused of paying the money into his personal investment account for 90 days, through one of his associates, Mark Saviour Ndifreke (now at large) contrary to Section 15 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004.

Though the former minister pleaded not guilty to all the charges, he was said to have committed the offence between September 2006 to January 2007 while he was Minister of Culture and Tourism and later Aviation.

Justice Mohammed said: "All the arguments canvassed on the document sought to be tendered as being relevant is therefore untenable because relevancy alone does not determine the admissibility of a statement of account under sections 97(1)(h) and (2)(e) of the Evidence Act.

"The issue of certain certification of a statement cannot also apply because what is in contention is that document i.e. statement of account is a computer print-out."

He urged the National Assembly to urgently amend the Evidence Act to accommodate computer printout since it forms part of the day-to-day activities in e-business transactions, particularly in banking circle.

"I must also express the view that there is the urgent need for an amendment of the Evidence Law to cover admissibility of document made by means of computer print out since it is clear that those technological methods of producing document now form part of the day to day activities in business transactions and particularly in banking circle," he said.

At last Tuesday's sitting of the court, a prosecution witness, Olubayo Sadipo, told the court in Lagos that one Ndifreke, an aide of Fani-Kayode, brought in N25 million cash, which was paid into his (Fani-Kayode) account as fixed deposit.

Sadipo said the N25 million was brought in two tranches of N10 million and N15 million by the aide to the former Minister and that at the expiration of the fixed deposit, Fani-Kayode wrote an official letter, with the letterhead of the Federal Ministry of Transport, and signed same as the Minister of State for Transport, terminating the investment.

Led in evidence by counsel to EFCC, Mr. Festus Keyamo, the witness said Fani-Kayode became a customer of the bank in 2002 and operated a savings account, which also had the feature of a current account.

At that point Keyamo tendered Fani-Kayode's opening account form, called 'Win Account', which was opposed by the defence, but they were overruled by the court, which admitted same as exhibit.

Asked if there were other accounts connected to Fani-Kayode, the witness said: "We also have the account of Remilekun Fani-Kayode opened in 2006 and that of Regina Fani-Kayode opened in 2005."

Evidence of the accounts was also tendered by the prosecution.

Further, the witness said Fani-Kayode has a fixed deposit account with the bank and that N25 million was transferred into the account.

He added that the money was brought in cash by Ndifreke in two tranches of N10 million and N15 million, while the investment was terminated on January 4, 2007, through a letter of instruction from the accused person.

"The letterhead of the letter of instruction is from the Federal Ministry of Transport and the accused signed as the Minister of Transport," the witness told the court.

Efforts by the prosecution to tender the statement of account were opposed by the defence counsel led by Chief Ladi Williams (SAN).

Reacting to the ruling, counsel to EFCC, Keyamo, said though he respects the position and authority of the court, he disagreed with the judge, adding that the ruling was not healthy for the commission's cases currently pending in courts.

He also called on the National Assembly to urgently review some of the country's laws to meet with modern challenges, promising that he would challenge the decision at the Court of Appeal on behalf of the commission.