By Israel Usman

A few days ago, I read two different stories. One was related to a judge who relied on DNa results to put his wife on the spot. The second story was an emotional one told in a dramatic fashion by a lawyer regarding proceedings in court in which DNa result showed that his client was not the father of the girl that was his “carbon copy.”

I could point out so many things wrong n these stories but the essence of this write up is to highlight the unbridled adoption and gullibility of tech-generated results by lawyers and judges alike. And it is not limited to DNa evidence. Forensic experts will a better job than me here.

First Caution: Certification

My fear is DNA testing in Nigeria. It is a very complex and technical process prone to errors. Any error or mistake at any stage of the process including extraction, transportation, preservation, replication process, etc can lead to inaccurate results. It is for this reason that the people, and the institutions involved need to be certified. Apart from that, depending on process or equipment used, accuracy levels vary. It could be 60% or 98%. The equipment must therefore be certified as well. In fact, in some cases, installation and maintenance of the equipment require expertise by certified professionals.

It is for this reason that in some cases, the test process needs to be repeated to eliminate chances of error or to confirm earlier results. It might also be necessary to do the same test at another institution, just to be sure. In such repeat tests, the results may vary slightly but must be within certain acceptable range in order to arrive at a some conclusion.

Second Caution: Nigerian factor

For obvious reasons, Nigeria is, generally speaking, not a place to do DNA tests, at least, not in our public institutions. Apart from process flaws, it is now well known that anyone can pay to procure any medical result he wants in Nigeria. (Case in point? COVID-19 test result scandals.) Embassies and the big companies designate particular laboratories or medical institutions they trust for medical examinations for visa and employment purposes. DNa testing is even a far more rigourous process than these routine examinations.

Third Caution:

In Nigeria where babies can be switched at birth (mistakenly or deliberately), it is not enough accuse mothers of infidelity unless this is also ruled out. It is devastatingly destructive to a mother to be accused of something she may know nothing about. Imagine the trauma of spouses confronted with inaccurate or false results, particularly women. And she may not know it is inaccurate or false. Worse still if they don’t know that they can ask for the tests to be done independently by another institution, or if they don’t have they money for a second test.

How well do fathers know the maternity wards of the private or public hospitals where the babies were born?

Concluding Thoughts:

And what if the DNa result was wrong or inaccurate or flawed?
This is about DNa. Imagine the scenario for autopsies and post-mortem results, toxicology reports, etc.
Now, imagine the scenarios we can paint for other types of tech-generated results.
Even if you trust technology, you still need to validate.
Question for litigation lawyers; do you know how to validate or challenge tech-generated results/reports in court?

Israel Usman

israelusman@gmail.com