Court rejects request to examine Naira Marley’s iPhone

the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Thursday opposed a request to examine the SIM slot of the iPhone of musician Azeez Fashola, also known as Naira Marley. Naira Marley is being charged with cyber crime. The EFCC preferred cybercrime charges against the musician on May 14, 2019. Naira Marley, who sang the popular song: “Am I a Yahoo Boy”, was tried on May 20, 2019 before Judge Nicholas Oweibo, but pleaded not guilty. The court granted him bail in the amount of N2 million with two guarantees for the same amount. Since then, the trial had started in the case and the second prosecution witness who concluded his chief examination on October 27, 2021 is being questioned. Judicial procedement EFCC’s lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo, objected during the cross-examination of the second prosecution witness, Augustine Anosike, before a Federal High Court in Lagos. Oyedepo said that the witness should not be forced to open the SIM slot on Naira Marley’s phone to determine the presence of a SIM card or otherwise, as he never opened it during his analysis. On Thursday, the defense attorney, Mr. Olalekan Ojo, asked the witness if he remembered testifying that his devices could capture and retrieve deleted information. When the witness answered in the affirmative, Mr. Ojo asked if he had indicated in Exhibit F or F1 that any information was deleted and recovered. In response, the witness told the court that the content of his report indicated that the recovered items also included redacted information. When the defense attorney redirected the witness to specifically answer the question, he told the court that, for example, in the tagged messages column, it was noted that two pieces of information were deleted but recovered. He said that in the web/history column, it stated that about 688 items were deleted but recovered, while another web column stated that 120 items were deleted but recovered. Referring to pages 1958, of Exhibit F1, the witness told the court that he indicated an incoming text was deleted, adding that the message ID read He told the court that the deleted and recovered items showed that the devices could recover even deleted information. The defense attorney then asked the witness if the defendant’s iPhone had a SIM card when he worked on it. cross-examination In response, the witness told the court that he did not open the defendant’s phone, but just ran the extraction and came out with the result. When asked if he was able to detect that the iPhone was a used phone before it was sent to him for analysis, the witness replied that he was not. When asked when the first extraction of information was made, the witness said that, for example, under contract, the first index was created on September 2, 2018 and was modified on December 21, 2018, according to the device. . The defense attorney then asked for the defendant’s iPhone and asked the court to allow the witness to open the SIM slot to determine if a SIM card was present. However, the prosecutor objected to the request, alleging that the witness had already stated in the records that he did not open the phone during the analysis. He argued that by not having done so during the analysis, the witness should not be forced to do so during the trial. However, Mr. Ojo said that what he wanted to prove in court was whether the SIM card was inside the defendant’s iPhone and not remove or tamper with it. advertisements He told the court that he was also seeking to show that the defendant’s phone number, which ended in 32, was in use at the time, while the same phone was in court custody. After arguments and counterarguments, the court upheld the prosecution’s argument that opening the SIM slot was not the right thing to do. The judge adjourned the case until April 6, for the continuation of the trial. Background According to the EFCC, Naira Marley committed the crimes on different dates between November 26, 2018 and December 11, 2018, as well as May 10, 2019. The commission alleged that Naira Marley and her accomplices conspired to use different Access Bank ATM cards to defraud their victims. It alleged that the defendant used a bank credit card issued to another person in an attempt to obtain fraudulent financial gain. The EFCC also said that the defendant possessed counterfeit credit cards belonging to different people, with the intent to defraud. The alleged offenses are in contravention of the provisions of Sections 1 23 (1) (b), 27 (1) and 33 (9) of the Cynthia er Crime Prevention (Prohibition) Act, 2015. Read More Related News Here Let here it in the comment below if you do have an opinion on this; Court rejects request to examine Naira Marley’s iPhone