In CBN v Interstellaย Communicationย Ltdย and 3 others,[1]the court held that the Nigeria Telecommunication Plc is an Agency of theย Federalย Governmentย therefore any record kept byย it of a privateย document is a publicย documentย under S.102 (b) of the Evidence Act 2011 andย by virtue of S. 90 (1) (c) of the Evidence Act, 2011, the only admissible secondary evidenceย in respect of the original document isย a certified true copy of same.
Also in Ezenwa Onwuzurike v Damian Edozien and others,[2]the Supreme Court held that a petition sent by a private individual to the Nigeria police requesting it to discharge constitutional duties upon their receipt by the Nigeria Police becomes public records kept by them of private document.
However, in the PDP V INEC and others,[3] the SC considered the issueย whether Exhibit No 5, a letter from INEC to the 25th respondent was a private document or a public document. The court held that:
โExhibit WO5, the subject of this issue was the originalย ย correspondence between the 25th respondent and Independent National Electoral commission. The said letter was in the custody of the 25th Respondent and remained so up to the point it was tendered. It is my view that there was no need to certify the original copy of the letter even though it was issued to him by a public officer. It is the public officer who keeps the original of a public document who certifies a copy of it which can be tendered where the original cannot be tenderedโฆ
Exhibit WO5, as I said earlier was the original correspondence addressed to the 25th respondent by Independent National Electoral Commission.ย I do not see how that copy with the 25th respondent which he tendered was a public document. Rather, it is the copy with the Independent National Electoral Commission which is a public document. In that case the original can be tendered through the officer who made it or a certified true copy of a secondary copy can also be tendered. The copy with the 25th respondent to my mind was properly tendered.
The understanding of the above dictum is that a letter from a private person to a government institution which is in the custody of the institution is a public document. Thus, any original copy of the said letter which remained with the private person would not be a public document. It would remain a private document and the original of same can be tendered.
[1] (2017) 43940 (SC).
[2](2016) LPELR โ 26056 (SC).
[3](2014) LPELR โ 23808.