Electronic Evidence and Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011: Admissibility of Computer-Generated Documents

In 2012, a governorship election in Bayelsa State was challenged at the election tribunal. The appellants tendered a computer printout from the INEC website and an online version of a newspaper article as exhibits. Both were admitted at the tribunal. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the court struck out both exhibits because the appellants had never fulfilled the pre-conditions for admission of electronic evidence under section 84(2) of the Evidence Act 2011.¹ The election petition failed partly as a result.

Electronic evidence is now at the centre of nearly every significant case in Nigeria, from election petitions to corruption trials, from commercial disputes to criminal proceedings. Emails, WhatsApp messages, computer printouts, CCTV footage, audio recordings, and website printouts are regularly tendered in Nigerian courts. And yet, the rules governing their admissibility remain poorly understood, frequently misapplied, and a reliable source of reversible error at both trial and appellate levels.

This article explains section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 in the detail that students need, including the four admissibility conditions, the certificate requirement, the weight provisions, the critical cases that have shaped how Nigerian courts interpret and apply this provision, and the important changes introduced by the Evidence (Amendment) Act 2023.

Why Section 84 Exists

Before the Evidence Act 2011, there was no statutory provision in Nigeria specifically governing the admissibility of computer-generated documents. Courts struggled to fit electronic evidence into the framework designed for paper documents. The old Evidence Act’s definition of a document was wide enough to include some electronic material, but the conditions for admission were designed for paper-based records and did not address the specific reliability concerns raised by electronic evidence. The general framework for documentary evidence in Nigerian courts is covered separately; section 84 sits within that framework as a specialised regime for computer-produced documents.

Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 was modelled on section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, which was itself derived from section 69 of the English Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.² The section creates a specific admissibility regime for statements contained in documents produced by computers, recognising that computer-generated documents raise unique reliability concerns that paper documents do not: computers can malfunction, data can be corrupted, records can be altered without obvious physical evidence, and the person who produces the printout is often not the person who created or entered the original data.

Section 84 was subsequently amended by the Evidence (Amendment) Act 2023, signed into law on 12 June 2023. The 2023 Amendment introduced new provisions extending the regime to “electronic records,” inserted sections 84A to 84D, and made several changes that have significant implications for how electronic evidence is admitted in Nigerian courts. The Amendment is addressed in a dedicated section below.

The Basic Admissibility Rule: Section 84(1)

Section 84(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 provides that in any proceeding, 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 section 84(2) are satisfied in relation to the statement and the computer in question.

Three important elements follow from section 84(1).

First, the document must have been produced by a computer. Section 258(1) of the Evidence Act defines a computer as any device for storing and processing information. This is an extremely wide definition. Smartphones, tablets, servers, ATM machines, point-of-sale terminals, surveillance cameras with digital storage, and any other device that stores and processes information falls within the definition. In Omisore v Aregbesola,³ the court held that section 84 applies not only to internet-generated documents but to every kind of computer-generated evidence.

Second, the statement in the document must be one of which direct oral evidence would be admissible. This links the admissibility of electronic evidence to the general framework: electronic evidence does not open a wider door than oral evidence would. The distinction between relevancy, admissibility, and weight is foundational here: a document may be relevant but still fail the admissibility threshold if section 84(2) is not satisfied.

Third, the conditions in section 84(2) must be satisfied. These conditions are mandatory, not discretionary. The Supreme Court in Kubor v Dickson⁴ was unequivocal: a party must fulfil the pre-conditions in section 84(2), and if they do not, the computer-generated evidence is inadmissible.

The Four Conditions: Section 84(2)

Section 84(2) imposes four conditions that must all be satisfied before a computer-generated document is admissible.

Condition 1: The document was produced during a period when the computer was used regularly for activities of the kind from which the statement was derived.

The computer must have been in regular use for the type of activity involved during the period when the document was produced. An ATM machine that processes transactions daily satisfies this condition. A computer that is brought out only occasionally, or that was first activated specifically to generate the document in question, does not.

Condition 2: During that period, information of the kind contained in the statement was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.

The information feeding into the computer must have been regularly supplied as a matter of routine. This condition is designed to ensure that the data in the document came from a genuine operational system, not from data entered specifically to create evidence. Bank records, hospital records, telecom records, and trading records typically satisfy this condition because they are fed with information as a matter of daily operational necessity.

Condition 3: Throughout the material part of that period, the computer was operating properly, or if not, the failure did not affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents.

This condition addresses computer malfunctions. The computer must have been operating properly during the relevant period. If it malfunctioned, the malfunction must not have affected either the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents. This condition requires the proponent of the evidence to have some knowledge of the operational history of the system.

Condition 4: The information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.

The information in the document must be traceable to information originally entered into the system in the ordinary course of business or operation. It cannot be derived from information entered for the purpose of creating the document.

All four conditions must be satisfied. One failure is sufficient to render the evidence inadmissible. In Akeredolu v Mimiko,⁵ the Court of Appeal held that where the conditions specified in section 84 were unfulfilled, a demonstration of electronic evidence ought not to be allowed.

The Certificate Requirement: Section 84(4)

Section 84(4) provides that a certificate may be used to establish the conditions in section 84(2). The certificate must identify the document, describe how it was produced, give particulars of any device used in producing it, confirm that to the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief the conditions in section 84(2) have been satisfied, and be signed by a person in a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.

The certificate is therefore a document that accompanies the computer-generated evidence and vouches for the fulfilment of the section 84(2) conditions. It is an alternative to oral testimony about the system’s operation and regularity.

Can the certificate be signed by a non-expert? In the English case that section 84(4) was modelled on, Lord Griffith stated that proof that a computer is reliable can be provided either by calling oral evidence or by tendering a written certificate: the certificate need not be signed by an expert.⁶ The certificate can be signed by someone in a responsible operational position, such as a bank manager, a records officer, or a technology administrator.

Oral evidence as an alternative to the certificate. In Sylva v Dickson,⁷ the Supreme Court, endorsing the position in R v Shepherd, held that the four conditions in section 84(2) may be established either by the certificate under section 84(4) or by oral evidence. Both routes are equally valid. A party who calls a bank manager to testify about the bank’s computer system, its regular operation, and the conditions under which the statement was generated has complied with section 84(2) without needing a certificate.

Who bears responsibility when the device is not yours? In Stanbic IBTC Bank v LongTerm Global Capital Ltd,⁸ the Court of Appeal addressed a practical problem: what happens when the party seeking to rely on a computer-generated document does not have possession or control of the device that produced it? The court held that a party in that position cannot be required to produce a section 84(4) certificate. The requirement must be interpreted in light of what is actually possible for that party to produce. This is a sensible practical limitation on the certificate requirement and is especially relevant in disputes involving third-party records such as telecoms data or records held by government agencies.

In the Bayelsa governorship case, Kubor v Dickson,⁴ Onnoghen JSC (as he then was) held that the conditions in section 84(2) must be fulfilled, and if the computer-generated document is also a public document, only a certified true copy of it is admissible. Computer printouts from a government agency’s website were treated as public documents in that case, and the failure to tender certified true copies was an additional ground for their exclusion.

The Scope of Section 84: A Live Debate

Does section 84 apply to all computer-generated evidence? In Omisore v Aregbesola,³ the court held that section 84 extends to every kind of computer-generated evidence, not only internet-generated documents. On this approach, section 84 is a universal gateway: WhatsApp messages, emails, bank statements, CCTV footage, GPS records, social media screenshots, call records, and electronic voting data all pass through it.

The hearsay-centric argument. A competing view, which has attracted academic support and begun to find some judicial traction, is that section 84 is properly understood as a regime for computer-generated evidence that would otherwise be excluded as hearsay. The rule against hearsay in Nigerian evidence law and its exceptions are examined separately; the relevant point here is that section 84 was designed to solve the hearsay problem for computer-produced records: the person who generated the data (the computer) cannot be cross-examined, and section 84’s conditions are a substitute for cross-examination, verifying the reliability of the process that produced the record. But where the computer-generated document is direct evidence rather than hearsay (for instance, a printout of an email that a party themselves authored and is tendering as their own communication), the hearsay concern does not arise and the full section 84 apparatus should not be necessary.

This argument remains contested. The Nigerian courts have not definitively resolved it, and the weight of current authority, particularly Omisore v Aregbesola, favours broad application. But students and practitioners should understand that the debate exists and that a more targeted, purposive interpretation is available.

Bank statements: a specific controversy. One version of this debate concerns bank statements. Earlier Court of Appeal decisions held that bank statements are computer-generated evidence subject to full section 84 compliance. In the more recent decision of BUA International Ltd v SAIMA (Nig.) Ltd,⁹ however, the Court of Appeal departed from that position and held that bank statements of account are not computer-generated evidence requiring compliance with section 84(2). The court took the view that bank statements are admissible under the banker’s books provisions (sections 89(h) and 90) without separately satisfying section 84. This decision conflicts with earlier Court of Appeal authority and creates an unresolved tension that the Supreme Court has not yet settled. Both positions should be noted in any examination answer on this point.

Admissibility Versus Weight: A Critical Distinction

The relationship between section 84 (admissibility) and section 34 (weight) must be clearly understood. The broader distinction between relevancy, admissibility, and weight of evidence applies with particular force to electronic evidence because courts sometimes conflate the question of whether a document got in with the question of how much it proves.

Section 84 governs admissibility. A document that does not satisfy section 84(2) is inadmissible. The court cannot act on it regardless of how relevant or reliable it may appear.

Section 34(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 2011 governs the weight to be given to a computer-generated document once it has been admitted. It requires the court to consider whether the information was supplied contemporaneously to the fact in issue, and whether the supplier had any incentive to conceal or misrepresent facts.

In Dickson v Sylva,¹⁰ the Supreme Court held through Nweze JSC that demonstrating the computer-generated evidence is done with a view to conferring weight on the evidence, not to make it admissible. Once the evidence satisfies section 84 and is admitted, the device used to demonstrate it in open court does not itself need to comply with section 84. Section 84 is only about the computer that produced the document, not about every device used in the courtroom.

The Rhodes-Vivour JSC opinion in the same case provided further clarification: section 84 does not require that the computer or electronic device used to play an exhibit in court be certified. It is only the computer that produced the exhibit that requires certification.¹¹

This distinction has significant practical implications. If a prosecution wants to play a DVD recording in court, it does not need to produce section 84 compliance evidence for the laptop it uses to play the DVD in the courtroom. It needs section 84 compliance evidence for the system that originally produced and recorded the DVD.

Electronic Evidence and Public Documents

A complication arises when the computer-generated document is also a public document. Public documents are defined in section 102 of the Evidence Act 2011. Where a computer-generated document is a public document (such as a record from a government database, an INEC printout, or a court record), its only admissible secondary evidence is a certified true copy (CTC) of the document.

This was the precise problem in Kubor v Dickson.⁴ The computer printouts from the INEC website were public documents. Only CTCs of them would be admissible as secondary evidence of public documents. Tendering bare printouts without CTCs was therefore doubly defective: they failed the section 84(2) conditions and were also tendered in the wrong form for public documents.

Whether the Evidence (Amendment) Act 2023, and specifically section 84B with its “notwithstanding” clause, changes this position for electronic public records is a question that has begun to be debated in academic and professional commentary. The point is examined in the next section.

The Evidence (Amendment) Act 2023

On 12 June 2023, the Evidence (Amendment) Act 2023 came into force. It made several significant changes to the electronic evidence regime that students publishing work or sitting examinations must know.

Expansion to “electronic records.” Section 2 of the Amendment Act inserted the phrase “or electronic records” into section 84 of the principal Act, so that the section now governs not only documents produced by computers but also “electronic records.” Electronic record is defined in the Amendment as “data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received, or sent in an electronic form or microfilm.” This broader category captures data stored in the cloud, received via messaging applications, and transmitted digitally, going beyond the computer-output model of the original section 84.

Section 84A: Electronic form satisfies writing requirements. Where any law in Nigeria requires information to be in writing, typewritten, or printed, section 84A provides that this requirement is satisfied if the information is rendered in an electronic form that is accessible for subsequent reference. This provision resolves a longstanding practical issue: where a contract, notice, or statutory requirement demanded a written document, an electronic version now satisfies that requirement.

Section 84B: Admissibility of electronic records without proof of the original. Section 84B provides that any information contained in an electronic record that is printed on paper, stored, recorded, or copied in optical or magnetic media, cloud computing, or a database produced by a computer, is admissible in any judicial proceeding as a document, without further proof or production of the original, provided the conditions specified in the section are satisfied.

Two features of section 84B are analytically significant. First, it begins with a “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act” clause. Nigerian appellate courts have consistently interpreted “notwithstanding” clauses as conferring priority over other provisions in the same enactment where they conflict. This raises a live question: does section 84B override the strict Kubor v Dickson requirements, including the need for a section 84(4) certificate or full oral evidence of the system’s reliability? One reading is that section 84B creates a simpler admissibility pathway for electronic records that partially bypasses the original section 84(2) regime. The counter-argument is that the phrase “provided the conditions specified in the section are satisfied” refers back to conditions that still include section 84(2) compliance, so the practical effect may be narrower than the “notwithstanding” clause suggests.

This debate has not yet been resolved by the Supreme Court. For practitioners, the conservative approach is to continue complying with section 84(2) until clear appellate authority interprets the relationship between section 84 and section 84B definitively. For students, identifying the tension and articulating both readings is the analytical point that distinguishes a strong answer from a basic one.

Second, section 84B expressly dispenses with the requirement of producing the original document. Under the original section 84 and the primary evidence rule in section 88, the original of a computer-generated document (where it exists) would ordinarily be required. Section 84B removes this requirement for electronic records.

Section 84C: Digital signatures as authentication. Section 84C recognises digital signatures as a means of authenticating electronic records. Any person may authenticate an electronic record by affixing their digital signature. The digital signature must be reliable and satisfy the conditions specified in the Act. A digital signature now carries the same legal force as a handwritten signature on a physical document.

Section 84D: Secure digital signatures. Section 84D provides for “secure digital signatures,” where compliance with specified conditions reverses the burden of proof on the question of authenticity. A party challenging a document bearing a secure digital signature bears the burden of proving it is not authentic.

The Constitutional Connection

Electronic evidence issues often intersect with the right to fair hearing under section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

Where an accused person is convicted substantially on the basis of electronic evidence, and that electronic evidence was not properly authenticated under section 84(2), the conviction may be challenged both as a statutory error and as a violation of the constitutional right to fair hearing. The right to challenge the evidence against you, guaranteed by section 36(6)(d), requires that the evidence be in a form that can be meaningfully tested. Electronic evidence that has not been authenticated cannot be meaningfully challenged by the accused because its provenance and reliability are unknown.

The courts have not yet fully worked out the constitutional implications of wrongly admitted electronic evidence in criminal proceedings. But the argument is available, and students who identify it demonstrate a level of analysis that goes beyond rote application of section 84.

A Quick Reference Table

Element	Rule	Key Section
Definition of computer	Any device for storing and processing information	s 258(1) EA 2011
Basic admissibility rule	Computer-generated statements admissible if s 84(2) conditions satisfied	s 84(1) EA 2011
Condition 1	Computer in regular use for relevant activities during relevant period	s 84(2)(a) EA 2011
Condition 2	Information regularly supplied in ordinary course of activities	s 84(2)(b) EA 2011
Condition 3	Computer operating properly; any failure did not affect document	s 84(2)(c) EA 2011
Condition 4	Information in document derived from information supplied in ordinary course	s 84(2)(d) EA 2011
Certificate	Signed by person in responsible position; confirms s 84(2) conditions; or oral evidence	s 84(4) EA 2011; Sylva v Dickson
Weight	Court considers contemporaneity and incentive to misrepresent	s 34(1)(b) EA 2011
Public document as computer-generated	Must be tendered as CTC; possibly affected by s 84B	ss 84, 84B, 102 EA 2011
Electronic form satisfies writing requirement	2023 Amendment	s 84A EA 2011 (as amended)
Electronic records admissible without original	“Notwithstanding” clause; conditions still apply	s 84B EA 2011 (as amended)
Digital signatures	Authentication method; same force as handwritten signature	s 84C EA 2011 (as amended)
Bank statements	Contested: earlier cases require s 84 compliance; BUA v SAIMA holds banker’s books sufficient	ss 84, 89(h); BUA International v SAIMA (2023)

Key Cases

Kubor v Dickson (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1402) 1 SC The Supreme Court held that a party must fulfil the pre-conditions in section 84(2) before computer-generated documents are admissible. Printouts from the INEC website were treated as public documents and held inadmissible as they were not tendered as CTCs and the section 84(2) conditions were not satisfied.

Omisore v Aregbesola (2015) LPELR-24803(SC) The Supreme Court held that section 84 applies to every kind of computer-generated evidence, not only internet-generated documents. Any electronic evidence that does not comply with section 84 is inadmissible.

Sylva v Dickson (2013) LPELR-20433(SC) The Supreme Court held that the four conditions in section 84(2) may be established either by the certificate under section 84(4) or by oral evidence. Demonstrating computer-generated evidence in court using a device does not require that device to comply with section 84.

Dickson v Sylva (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1515) 484 SC The Supreme Court distinguished between admissibility (governed by section 84) and weight (governed by section 34). Section 84 governs the computer that produced the document, not every device used in the courtroom.

Stanbic IBTC Bank v LongTerm Global Capital Ltd (2021) LPELR-55610(CA) The Court of Appeal held that a party who does not have the device from which a document is produced cannot be required to produce a section 84(4) certificate. The certification requirement must be interpreted in light of what is practically possible.

BUA International Ltd v SAIMA (Nig.) Ltd (2023) LPELR-59533(CA) The Court of Appeal departed from earlier decisions and held that bank statements of account are not computer-generated evidence requiring section 84(2) compliance. This conflicts with prior Court of Appeal authority and remains unresolved at the Supreme Court level.

Akeredolu v Mimiko (2013) LPELR-20403(CA) The Court of Appeal held that where the conditions in section 84 are unfulfilled, electronic demonstrations ought not to be allowed.

Rowaye v FRN (2018) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1650) 21 CA The court held that an electronic mail is a form of communication in writing, not oral, and is subject to the admissibility requirements of section 84.

Problem Question Framework

When a problem question involves electronic evidence of any kind, apply this framework.

First, identify whether the evidence is a statement in a document produced by a computer under section 84(1), or an “electronic record” now covered by the 2023 Amendment. Remember that almost any digital device is a “computer” under section 258(1). If yes, proceed to the section 84(2) conditions.

Second, apply all four conditions. Was the computer in regular use for the relevant activities? Was the information regularly supplied in the ordinary course of those activities? Was the computer operating properly? Is the information in the document derived from information supplied in the ordinary course?

Third, check whether a section 84(4) certificate exists or whether oral evidence of the system’s reliability has been called. If neither exists, consider whether the Stanbic IBTC principle applies: was it practically impossible for the tendering party to obtain a certificate because the device was in third-party custody?

Fourth, ask whether the document is also a public document. If yes, it must be tendered as a certified true copy. Note the open question about whether section 84B now affects this requirement for electronic public records.

Fifth, if the evidence is a bank statement, flag the conflict between earlier authority requiring full section 84 compliance and BUA International v SAIMA (2023), which holds that banker’s books provisions suffice.

Sixth, if all conditions are met and the document is admitted, assess its weight under section 34(1)(b). Was the information supplied contemporaneously? Did the supplier have any incentive to misrepresent?

Seventh, if the conditions are not met, the document is inadmissible. State the consequences clearly and consider whether this affects the case as a whole.

Eighth, consider whether the Evidence (Amendment) Act 2023 affects the analysis, particularly where the evidence involves cloud-stored records, digital signatures, or situations where the original electronic record cannot be produced.

Common Student Mistakes

The first mistake is treating electronic evidence as admissible simply because it is relevant. Relevance does not determine admissibility. Section 84(2) conditions must be independently satisfied.

The second mistake is thinking the certificate in section 84(4) must be signed by an IT expert. It need not. It must be signed by a person in a responsible position in relation to the operation of the device.

The third mistake is treating the certificate as the only route to admissibility. Oral evidence establishing the section 84(2) conditions is equally valid following Sylva v Dickson.

The fourth mistake is conflating the admissibility and weight questions. Section 84 governs admissibility. Section 34 governs weight. An analysis that treats these as the same produces wrong conclusions.

The fifth mistake is forgetting that when electronic evidence is also a public document, it must be tendered as a CTC. Bare printouts of public documents, even if section 84(2) is satisfied, are not in the correct form, subject to the unresolved question of section 84B’s “notwithstanding” effect.

The sixth mistake is treating the conditions in section 84(2) as alternatives. They are cumulative. All four must be satisfied. A party who satisfies three out of four has not crossed the admissibility threshold.

The seventh and most common examination mistake is ignoring the Evidence (Amendment) Act 2023 entirely. The 2023 Amendment introduced sections 84A to 84D, expanded the regime to cover “electronic records,” removed the requirement to produce the original, recognised digital signatures, and introduced a “notwithstanding” clause in section 84B whose relationship to the original section 84(2) requirements is yet to be definitively resolved by the Supreme Court.

The eighth mistake is stating confidently that bank statements require full section 84 compliance without acknowledging the BUA International v SAIMA (2023) departure, or stating that they do not without acknowledging the prior conflicting authority.

---

Footnotes

¹ Kubor v Dickson (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1402) 1 SC.

² Section 84 was modelled on section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, derived from section 69 of the English Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

³ Omisore v Aregbesola (2015) LPELR-24803(SC).

⁴ Kubor v Dickson (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1402) 1 SC.

⁵ Akeredolu v Mimiko (2013) LPELR-20403(CA).

⁶ Lord Griffiths in R v Shepherd [1993] AC 380, as adopted by the Nigerian Supreme Court in Sylva v Dickson.

⁷ Sylva v Dickson (2013) LPELR-20433(SC).

⁸ Stanbic IBTC Bank v LongTerm Global Capital Ltd (2021) LPELR-55610(CA).

⁹ BUA International Ltd v SAIMA (Nig.) Ltd (2023) LPELR-59533(CA).

¹⁰ Dickson v Sylva (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1515) 484 SC.

¹¹ Rhodes-Vivour JSC in Dickson v Sylva ibid.