ustice Jaiteh has overruled the state’s objection to the admissibility of Mama Jabbi and Ousainou Bojang’s conversation audio recording and its English transcription.
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), A.M. Yusuf, and F. Touray appeared for the State, and J. Jeng and A. Sillah represented the 1st and 2nd Accused Persons, respectively.
The ruling came when the Director of Public Prosecution A.M. Yusuf objected to the admissibility of the audio and its English transcription
Defence Counsel A. Sillah applied under section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1994, to tender a flash drive containing an audio recording in a local language, along with its English transcription. The Director of Public Prosecutions objected to its admissibility.
Direction of Public Prosecution (DPP) A.M. Yusuf objected based on the ground that the accompanying certificate of computer-generated evidence allegedly failed to comply with the mandatory requirements stipulated under section 22 of the Evidence Act, 1994.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh delved into a detailed clarification of what constitutes “computer-generated evidence” under Section 22 of the Act.
Justice Jaiteh held that the law defines a computer in the context as “a device for storing and processing information, and a reference to information being derived from other information is a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process.”
Justice Jaiteh explained that the certificate requirement is targeted at situations where the information is the “product of computational processing, such as calculations, comparisons, algorithmic derivations, or the generation of statistical or analytical outputs.”
Justice Jaiteh asserted “Not all materials that pass through or are stored in a computer constitute ‘computer-generated evidence’ within the meaning of section 22. Merely using a computer as a storage or word-processing tool does not transform every document or audio file into computer-generated output requiring certification.”
Applying the distinction, Justice Jaiteh ruled that the audio in question, a recording stored on a flash drive, is not an algorithmic product, statistical output, or computational derivation produced by a computer.
Justice Jaiteh stated: “It is simply a recording stored on a flash drive and later transcribed into English by human effort… The law does not elevate form above substance. What carries probative value is the content of the audio and the accuracy of the transcription, not the certificate accompanying it.”
Justice Jaiteh concluded that the objection was “therefore purely technical and does not go to the substance or reliability of the evidence tendered.”
Justice Jaiteh overruled the objection that the certificate does not constitute evidence before the Court and its alleged non-compliance has no impact on the admissibility of the audio or the transcription. He added that the flash drive containing the audio recording and its English transcription is relevant within the meaning of section 3 of the Evidence Act.
Justice Jaiteh admitted the audio and its transcription into evidence and marked it as Exhibit D38.
Justice Jaiteh stated that the weight and credibility of the evidence will be evaluated in due course.
By Kexx Sanneh
