Naira Marley’s trial for cybercrime continues June 1Yes
Defence, on Thursday, concluded cross-examination of the second prosecution witness in the trial of a musician, Azeez Fashola (a. k.a Naira Marley) facing cybercrime charges.
The second prosecution witness, Mr Augustine Anosike, is a forensic analyst, who began evidence in 2021.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is prosecuting the defendant.
Fashola, who sang the popular song: “Am I a yahoo boy”, was arraigned on May 20, 2019, before Justice Nicholas Oweibo, but he pleaded not guilty.
The court granted him bail in the sum of two million nairas, with two sureties in like sum.
On Thursday, the defence concluded a cross-examination of the second prosecution witness, who ended evidence on Oct. 27, 2021.
During the cross-examination, defence counsel, Mr Olalekan Ojo (SAN), asked the witness what he understood by “to authorise a text or WhatsApp message”.
In response, the witness told the court that in his opinion, authorship referred to the producer or maker of the text.
On whether he confirms if the messages extracted from Fashola’s phone were products of human activities, he said, “I cannot tell because I am not in possession of the gadgets that transferred the messages”.
According to him, since the gadgets used for sending and receiving messages belonged to a human, that human is supposed to know how the messages emerged.
Defence counsel also asked the witness if he indicated in his report that the name Azeez Fashola was the sender of any of the messages.
The witness attempted to state that the defendant had other names saved in his phone, but defence counsel asked him to answer the question directly.
In response, the witness replied, “I cannot remember”.
When defence counsel asked that Exhibit F be shown to the witness as it contained details of his analysis which he had told the court was material to the case, the witness replied “My lord, I am not sure.”
Defence counsel then said, “My lord, we are not comfortable with the reply: “I am not sure”.
Ojo again reminded the witness that he had told the court that everything contained in Exhibit F was deemed relevant, adding that his reply before the court showed an attempt to be evasive.
Later, the witness replied: “In my report, I did not indicate such, but the general principle is that the owner of a phone is the sender of a message except he gave the phone to another person.”
Following his response, defence suggested to the witness that in Exhibit F, his extraction did not show the number of people who had used the phone other than the owner.