“The appellant had raised a concern over the admissibility of the medical report, Exhibit 6 as the maker was not called to testify. This grouse has been made in disregard to Section 55 (1) of the Evidence Act which has provided that either party to a proceeding in any criminal case may produce a certificate signed by specified government officers including any pathologist or entomologist etc and the production of any such certificate may be taken as sufficient evidence of the fact stated therein. Subsection (2) of the said Section 55 provides thus:- “notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (1) of this section, any certificate issued and produced by any officer in charge of any laboratory established by the appropriate authority may be taken as sufficient evidence of the fact stated in it. Subsection (3) goes further to provide that the Court has the power, on application of either party or of its own motion to direct that any such officer as is referred to in the subsection shall be summoned to give evidence before the Court, if it is of the opinion that the interest of justice so requires. It follows that the stance of the appellant on the absence of the maker of Exhibit 6 cannot avail him in the light of the clear provisions of Section 55 (2) and (3) of the Evidence Act.”  Per MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, JSC in WOWEM v. STATE (2021-LCER-40502-SC) (Pp 50 – 51; Paras C – C)