By C.K. ANYANWU, LL.M.
INTRODUCTION
In Nigerian civil and criminal litigation, the rules governing the admissibility of public documents are strict and deeply rooted in the Evidence Act. The general rule is straightforward. To tender a public document, a party must either produce the original or a Certified True Copy. This requirement exists to safeguard the authenticity and integrity of official records, however, an evidentiary debate has historically troubled legal practitioners and judges alike; What happens when a litigant attempts to tender a photocopy of an already Certified True Copy of a public document? Does that secondary document require a fresh round of certification, a ‘re-certification,’ to be admissible in court? The question has birthed a fascinating tension in Nigerian jurisprudence between strict adherence to judicial precedent and the pragmatic fear of technological manipulation. This article explores the jurisprudence surrounding the rule, examining the general principles, the judicial anxiety over ‘photo tricks,’ and the binding stance of the appellate courts.
The General Rule
It is pertinent to note that mere photocopies of public documents are inadmissible. To understand the exception, one must first grasp the general rule regarding public documents. A mere uncertified photocopy of a public document is fundamentally inadmissible.
This foundational principle was recently reiterated in *AGUNBIADE & ANOR v. ALADELUSI & ORS (2025) LPELR-81600(CA).* In determining whether a photocopy of a letter from a Local Government Area required certification, the Court of Appeal, per Fadawu Umaru, JCA, noted that recourse must be made to Sections 102 and 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011. The Court held that a document emanating from a public officer in the discharge of official duties is a public document, regardless of whether it is addressed to a private individual. Citing the Supreme Court in Minister of Lands v. Azikwe (1969) 1 ALL NLR 49, the Court maintained that any secondary copy of a public document is inadmissible unless it is certified.
The Divergent View and The Judicial Fear of ‘Photo Tricks’
It is important to underscore the fact that despite the rules on CTCs, a deep-seated apprehension exists within the judiciary regarding photocopied documents. Why would some judges insist that a photocopy of a CTC must be re-certified? The answer lies in the danger of forgery in the modern era.
This judicial anxiety was brilliantly captured in *IYAGBA v. CLEMENT & ORS (2025) LPELR-81824(CA).* Highlighting the opposing school of thought, Abubakar Mahmud Talba, JCA (at Pp 26 – 27, Paras B – B) referenced the profound reasoning of Dongban-Memsem JCA (now PCA) in Ogbom v Oduaghan (2011) NWLR (pt. 1233) 608 C.A.:
The question posed is this; ‘Should a photocopy of a certified true copy of a public document be re-certified?’ The answer is that in this age of sophisticated technology, photo tricks are the order of the day, and secondary evidence could be doctored and, thus, not authentic. Photo tricks could be applied in the process of copying the original document with the result that the copy which is secondary evidence does not completely and totally reflect the original and therefore not a carbon copy of the original. The Court has not the eyes of an eagle to detect such tricks (Tobi, JSC in Araka v. Egbue (2003) 33 WLN 1, 15-17)…’
Because courts do not have ‘the eyes of an eagle’ to detect sophisticated manipulations where a legitimate certification stamp could be superimposed onto a doctored document via photocopying, several intermediate courts have historically rejected photocopied CTCs, demanding that the photocopy itself be freshly certified to guarantee its current authenticity.
The Established Law and Stare Decisis
However compelling the ‘photo tricks’ argument may be, the apex court has laid down a strict legal precedent that trumps these administrative fears. The settled law is that once a public document has been properly certified, a photocopy made from that Certified True Copy is admissible without needing another stamp of certification.
This rule has long been anchored in Nigerian jurisprudence. In Iheonu v. Obiukwu (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 322) 594 C.A., the Court held that the photocopy of a CTC of a public document needs no further certification under the Evidence Act. This was restated in Daniel Tayar Trans. Ent. Ltd. v. Busari (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt. 695) 482 C.A., and affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Magaji v. Dankirana (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1447) 502 C.A., which held that while photocopies of public documents must be certified, a photocopy of an already certified document requires no further certification.
The ultimate authority settling this debate is the Supreme Court’s decision in Magaji v. Nigerian Army (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1089) 338 S.C.. Regardless of their personal reservations about technological forgery, lower courts are bound by this precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis.
In AJIBOLA v. TALABI & ANOR (2022) LPELR-57353(CA), Yargata Byenchit Nimpar, JCA, acknowledged the cogent reasoning of earlier dissenting cases like Ogboru v Uduaghan (Supra), but ultimately bowed to the Supreme Court:
‘The reasoning for the departure is cogent and convincing. However, as an intermediate Court, it is bound by precedent or the principle of stare decisis… “In obeisance to the principle of stare decisis, I will follow the apex Court’s decision because I am bound by it. I therefore disagree with the trial judge that the photocopy of the certified true copy of the deed of conveyance was not admissible in law without further certification…’
This strict adherence to precedent is consistently echoed across modern jurisprudence:
In PDP v. OYETOLA & ORS (2023) LPELR-60291(CA), James Gambo Abundaga, JCA, swiftly set aside a Tribunal’s decision that rejected a judgment merely because it was an uncertified photocopy of a CTC, declaring: ‘The law as I know it is that a photocopy of a CTC of a public document does not require re-certification to be admissible in evidence.’
In EFAB PROPERTIES LTD & ANOR v. OLAKUNLE & ORS (2025) LPELR-81524(CA), Ishaq Mohammed Sani, JCA, held that ‘In obeisance to the principle of stare decisis/ precedent laid down by the Supreme Court, I hold the respectful view that photocopies of a certified true copies was admissible and required no further certification.’
Even in IYAGBA v. CLEMENT & ORS (2025) LPELR-81824(CA), the very case that highlighted the dangers of ‘photo tricks,’ Abubakar Mahmud Talba, JCA (at Pp 25, Paras B-B) ultimately conceded to the binding precedent, concisely stating: ‘It is trite law that a photocopy of a certified True Copy does not require further certification.’
What if a Photocopy of a CTC is Actually Re-certified?
While the law does not demand re-certification, a litigant who takes a step out of abundance of caution does not render the document invalid. In MUDASHIRU v. STATE (2019) LPELR-47946(CA), the appellant challenged the admissibility of a judgment that was a further re-certified photocopy of a CTC. Jimi Olukayode Bada, JCA, dismissed the objection, noting: ‘I am of the view that Exhibit ‘P5A’ though a photocopy of a Certified True Copy, it was re-certified and this made it to be admissible.’ Thus, while redundant in the eyes of the Supreme Court, re-certification certainly cures any potential objection a trial judge might harbour regarding ‘photo tricks.’
CONCLUSION
The jurisprudence surrounding the admissibility of photocopy of Certified True Copy of a public document reveals a fascinating tug-of-war between pragmatic caution and established legal rules. On one hand, judges are rightfully wary that modern ‘photo tricks’ can be used to superimpose certification stamps on doctored documents. On the other hand, the foundational doctrine of stare decisis demands predictability and uniformity in the law. The Supreme Court has tipped the scales in favour of legal certainty. As consistently affirmed from Iheonu v. Obiukwu (Supra) down to the modern 2025 appellate decisions in Agunbiade, EFAB Properties Ltd, and Iyagba v. Clement (Supra), the settled law remains unshaken, a photocopy of a certified true copy of a public document is admissible in evidence and requires no further certification.
LEGAL OPINION
It is interesting to note that if presented with a proper test case today, the Supreme Court of Nigeria would very likely qualify, refine, or depart from the rigid application of Magaji v. Nigerian Army (2008) by shifting from an absolute rule of automatic admissibility to a conditional, challenge based framework.
While the doctrine of stare decisis currently forces intermediate courts to follow the decision in Magaji’s case, the technological reality of Generative AI, deepfakes, and seamless digital editing renders the factual premise of 2008 legally fragile.
When the Supreme Court decided Magaji v. Nigerian Army in 2008, photocopying was primarily an analog, mechanical reproduction of physical ink on paper.
The court operated on the reasonable presumption that a photocopy of a Certified True Copy accurately reflected a genuine public officer’s official stamp and signature.
Today, Generative AI and advanced photo-editing tools allows anyone to extract an authentic certification stamp/signature from one public document and seamlessly blend it onto a completely fabricated or doctored document. Match paper textures, ink gradients, and official letterheads within seconds by pass physical anomalies that traditional forensic examination used to spot.
Conclusively, it is trite and essential the apex court revisits this issue and settle it in the light of the generative artificial intelligence and evolving technology in a changing world.
Chinagoromanyanwu@hotmail.com (08039298435)& C.K. EZEAKU ESQ.
In this article