Appeal Court Should Rely on It to Recognise Sen. Hope Uzodinma as Duly Nominated Candidate of APC – Progressive Lawyers Network

The Progressive Lawyers Network has issued a strong call for the appeallent court to treat the video recording of the formal declaration of results in the All Progressives Congress (APC) Imo West Senatorial District primary election as conclusive and binding evidence.

The Network through its spokesman Comrade Nshi O Nshi esq insists that this electronic record, which captures the official announcement by the Primary Election Chairman and Returning Officer, is clear, contemporaneous, and free from the contradictions that have plagued subsequent documentary claims.

On 18 May 2026, the APC conducted a direct primary election (Option A4) across the local government areas of Imo West Senatorial District. At the conclusion of the exercise, Retired Rear Admiral Williams Kayoda, Chairman and Returning Officer of the 2026 Imo APC National Assembly Primary Election Committee, publicly declared the results at the Orlu Local Government Area headquarters.

In the presence of party stakeholders, officials, and observers, he announced that His Excellency, Distinguished Senator Hope Uzodinma, had polled 230,464 votes and had satisfied all requirements of the APC Constitution, the party guidelines, and the relevant laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He formally declared Senator Hope Uzodinma the winner and duly nominated candidate of the APC for Imo West. Former Governor Rochas Okorocha was recorded as having scored 1,098 votes.

This declaration was captured on video. The Progressive Lawyers Network describes the footage as incontrovertible evidence of the official outcome of a primary that was monitored by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The Network argues that the video constitutes a real-time, public, and authoritative record of the Returning Officer’s formal act of declaration. It is not a private or secondary document later produced; it is the visual and audio record of the very moment the result was announced according to party procedure.

The Network notes that conflicting documents later circulated, purporting to show a different outcome in favour of Okorocha. These documents have been described by APC officials and INEC’s Resident Electoral Commissioner in Imo State as fictitious or fraudulent.

The Network maintains that such disputed paper records cannot override the clear video evidence of the official declaration made by the authorised Returning Officer on the day of the primary.

In the Network’s view, the courts should place decisive weight on this electronic evidence. A public declaration of election results by the Returning Officer, captured on video, is one of the strongest forms of proof available under Nigerian law.

It shows not only what was said, but the context, the authority of the speaker, and the public nature of the act. The Progressive Lawyers Network therefore urges the judiciary to rely on this video to recognise Senator Hope Uzodinma as the authentic, duly nominated candidate of the APC for Imo West Senatorial District.

Nigerian law has long moved beyond the outdated suspicion of electronic records. The Evidence Act 2011 (as amended by the Evidence (Amendment) Act 2023) provides a clear statutory pathway for the admission and use of computer-generated and audio-visual evidence, including video recordings.

Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 is the principal provision. It states that a statement contained in a document produced by a computer is admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, provided the conditions in Section 84(2) are satisfied.

Those conditions require that:

• The computer was regularly used to store or process information of the kind contained in the statement;
• The information was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of the relevant activities;
• The computer was operating properly throughout the material period (or any malfunction did not affect the accuracy of the record); and
• The information in the statement was reproduced or derived from information so supplied.

Compliance with these conditions may be proved either by oral evidence of a person familiar with the operation of the computer or by a certificate under Section 84(4).

The 2023 Amendment further expanded the concept of “electronic record” to cover data, images, and sound stored, received, or transmitted in electronic form, reinforcing the admissibility of modern video and audio recordings.

The Supreme Court has consistently enforced and clarified these provisions:

In Kubor v. Dickson (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1402) 1 (SC), the Court held that computer-generated documents are admissible only when the preconditions of Section 84(2) are fulfilled. Failure to satisfy those requirements renders the evidence inadmissible. The decision established that electronic evidence is not automatically rejected; it is admitted once the statutory foundation is properly laid.

In Dickson v. Sylva & Ors (2016) LPELR-41257(SC); (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1567) 167 (SC), the Supreme Court delivered one of the most important modern rulings on electronic evidence.

The Court held that the conditions in Section 84(2) may be established either by a certificate under Section 84(4) or by oral evidence. Crucially, it ruled that once an electronically generated document (such as a DVD or video recording) has been properly admitted, it must be demonstrated or played in open court to prove the facts alleged.

An electronic record that is admitted but never played remains a “closed” or “sleeping” document of no practical utility. The Court also clarified that the certificate requirement applies to the computer that produced the record, not to every device used merely to play the recording in court. Private viewing by the judge alone “cloistered justice” is forbidden.

In Omisore v. Aregbesola (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482) 205 (SC), the Supreme Court confirmed that Section 84 applies to every form of computer-generated evidence, not merely internet-sourced printouts. Video recordings, being documents produced by electronic devices that store and process information, fall squarely within this framework.

Subsequent Court of Appeal decisions have reinforced these principles. In cases such as Obiajulu v. State and Nwafor v. Ecobank (Nig.) Ltd, the appellate courts have reiterated that video or audio evidence, once admitted, must be played in open court in the presence of the parties. A trial judge cannot retire to chambers, view the recording privately, and then ascribe weight to it. Demonstration in open court is mandatory if the evidence is to have probative value.

Taken together, these authorities establish a clear legal pathway:

Authentic video evidence of an official public act, such as the formal declaration of primary election results by the Returning Officer is admissible under Section 84 and carries high probative value when properly demonstrated.

The Progressive Lawyers Network submits that the video of Retired Rear Admiral Williams Kayoda’s announcement meets these legal standards. It is a direct, contemporaneous record of the official declaration. Once admitted and played in open court, it should guide the court in affirming that Senator Hope Uzodinma was the duly nominated candidate of the APC for Imo West.

The Network therefore calls on the judiciary to give this electronic evidence the weight it deserves, to reject conflicting and disputed documents of doubtful authenticity, and to recognise Senator Hope Uzodinma as the authentic APC candidate for the Imo West Senatorial District.