- Haruna V. AGF (2012) ALL FWLR pt 632 p 1617 at 1636. - Ibrahim V. Ogunleye (2012)1 NWLR pt 1282 p 489. - Enemchukwu V. Okoyo (2018) ALL FWLR pt 929 p 226 p 249. - Ogu V. M.T.E.M.C.S. With the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and some of the cases decided by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal on this point, one is tempted to ask whether the proviso to Section 2 of the Evidence Act, 2011, limited the role “any other Act or legislation” can play in the admissibility of any piece of evidence when confronted or is in conflict with the provisions of the Evidence Act, 2011. For the purpose of the proviso to Section 2 of the Evidence Act, 2011, the entire provisions of the said Section 2, is hereby reproduced below as follows:“For the avoidance of doubt, all evidence given in accordance with Section 1, unless excluded in accordance with this or any other Act or any other legislation validly in force in Nigeria, be admissible in judicial proceedings to which this Act applies. Provided that admissibility of such evidence shall be subject to all such conditions as may be specified in each case by or under this Act.” In my humble view, by the phrase “admissibility of such evidence shall be subject to all such conditions as may be specified in each case by or under this Act, Page 19 of 34