Thorough verification needed to ensure audio evidence authenticity
With current technology, edits could be easily made and led to potentially compromised evidence.
PUTRAJAYA - With the growing sophistication of artificial intelligence (AI), Malaysian courts are urged to examine audio evidence rigorously to confirm authenticity before proceeding with trials.
Lawyer M Hafiz Zainol Abidin emphasised the need for meticulous verification of all evidence, particularly recordings possibly manipulated using AI before they were presented in court.
He highlighted that, with current technology, edits could be easily made and led to potentially compromised evidence.
"Investigations cannot rely solely on the recording itself, especially when the original source is unknown.
“Moreover, audio recordings are particularly easy to manipulate or edit with the increasingly sophisticated technology available,” he said.
He pointed out that, under Malaysian law, courts could apply Section 136 of the Evidence Act to assess whether an audio or visual recording holds any doubt regarding authenticity.
“Every digital document must also be accompanied by a certificate under Section 90A of the Evidence Act,” he added.
He made these remarks in response to the statement by Sindumin State Assemblyman, Datuk Dr Yusof Yacob, who claimed he was a victim of AI manipulation following the release of a video clip implicating several politicians in a corruption scandal in the state.
Yusof, who is also Chairman of Qhazanah Sabah Berhad, suspected that certain individuals exploited advanced AI technology to link him to the scandal, noting that the allegation seems to align with the upcoming 17th Sabah State Election.
In response, Yusof has called upon the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to investigate allegations of his involvement in an RM4 million bribe involving a contractor.
Commenting further on the matter, Hafiz suggested that investigators obtain the original files from the recording device to support the audio evidence’s credibility in court.
“The case can still be brought to court; however, the admissibility of the audio depends on objections or arguments presented during the submission of the audio,” he said.
