ADMISSIBILITY OF FORENSIC ACCOUNTING EVIDENCE UNDER THE NIGERIAN EVIDENCE ACT 2011: A LEGAL APPRAISAL

Abstract

This article provides a critical appraisal of the admissibility of forensic accounting evidence under the Nigerian Evidence Act 2011. It situates forensic accounting as an indispensable tool in the prosecution of economic and financial crimes, while interrogating how such evidence is received and evaluated in Nigerian courts. The discussion begins with a doctrinal analysis of the relevant statutory framework, particularly sections 68 and 84 of the Evidence Act, which govern expert opinion and electronic evidence respectively. Judicial interpretation of these provisions is examined through leading decisions, including EFCC v Orji Uzor Kalu and Akingbola v FRN, which illustrate the judiciary’s cautious and sometimes restrictive approach to forensic testimony. Beyond statutory provisions, the article emphasises the centrality of procedural requirements in determining admissibility and probative value. These include the qualifications and duties of expert witnesses, the preservation of an unbroken chain of custody, and the certification and authentication of electronic records, as codified under section 84(4). Nigerian courts, as seen in Abdullahi v State, have repeatedly underscored the principle that expert witnesses owe their primary duty to the court rather than to the parties that engage them. Empirical insights drawn from interviews with judges and practitioners further reveal recurring challenges, such as weak technical capacity, poor compliance with reporting standards, and failures in maintaining evidentiary integrity. Comparative perspectives are drawn from the United States, where the Daubert standard provides a structured framework for assessing expert reliability, and from the United Kingdom, where the Ikarian Reefer principles guide the duties and independence of expert witnesses. These frameworks expose the gaps in Nigeria’s evidentiary system, particularly the absence of codified standards for expert evidence. The article concludes that while forensic accounting evidence is increasingly relevant in complex financial litigation, its admissibility and weight remain undermined by procedural defects, judicial scepticism, and inconsistent application of statutory safeguards. To address these gaps, the article recommends judicial training, reform of evidentiary rules, adoption of structured admissibility tests, and accreditation of forensic experts. Such reforms are essential to strengthen the credibility, probative value, and judicial acceptance of forensic accounting evidence within Nigeria’s legal system.