When the witness Ebou Sowe was yesterday shown the call log document in the dock, the witness confirmed to the court that the details in the document were correct and also confirmed that his name was subscribed to the call log.
The Director of Public Prosecution A.M Yusuf objected to the document and argued that the document sought to be tendered was a computer-generated document and the DPP relied on the Evidence Act.
He said the documents had no nexus with the call log and the certificate, which confirmed the call log generated from Qcell Company. The DPP said the two documents were different because it was signed by a legal officer at the Qcell Company, stating that a legal officer is not a computer analyst.
Defence lawyer L. Darboe admitted that the document was signed by a legal officer and stated that such requests would go to the legal officer, and he further referred to the Evidence Act (EA).
Counsel Darboe urged the court to disregard the argument raised by the DPP and admit the documents into evidence.
The presiding judge, Justice Jaiteh, ruled that the documents were relevant, the test of admissibility was relevant pursuant to the Evidence Act and the proper foundation to the admissibility of the call log had been read and the certificate was in compliance with the Evidence Act accordingly.
He therefore overruled the objection of the DPP and admitted the call log and certificate into evidence.
