Case Note: Evidentiary Highlights from Balogun v. C.O.P (2025)
LPELR-82520 (CA)

The case of Balogun v. C.O.P presented a seemingly routine prosecution for
obtaining by false pretence and fraudulent conversion. Yet, beneath its factual
simplicity lies a rich body of judicial reasoning on evidence. The appeal turned
largely on whether the prosecution had discharged the burden of proving the
essential elements of the offences charged, and whether an altered
documentary exhibit (Exhibit 1) fatally undermined the conviction.
The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, addressed several important
evidentiary issues, making the case a useful reference point in criminal justice
discourse.

Evaluating Altered Documentary Evidence: Presumption of Authenticity
and Loss Thereof

One of the appellant’s principal arguments was that Exhibit 1, a receipt
allegedly altered from “₦70,000” to “₦170,000”, was unreliable and should not
have been admitted or relied upon.
The Court approached this issue by clarifying the law on altered documents:
1. A document containing alteration loses the presumption of
authenticity ordinarily afforded to documents.
2. The party tendering such a document must offer a credible
explanation for the alteration.
3. However, alteration does not render the document inadmissible; it
affects only its probative value, not its relevance.
Citing Rewane v. Dakolo, Orji v. Emivon, and Business Edge Consulting v.
Bauchi State Government, the Court held that Exhibit 1 remained admissible
but carried reduced weight.
Most notably, the trial court had already discounted the exhibit’s probative
value after observing suspicious overwritings. The Court of Appeal affirmed
this evaluative approach.

‍
Conclusion

Balogun v. C.O.P is a concise reaffirmation of key evidentiary rules:
● Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a matter of quality, not quantity.
● Altered documents are admissible but weakened.
● Wrongful admission of evidence is not automatically fatal.
● Credible oral testimony and confessional statements remain central in
criminal adjudication.

‍

‍