THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ILLEGAL OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE UNDER NIGERIAN LAW OF EVIDENCE


EDITED BY: Asykobi

There are times when a judge or magistrate or anyone performing a judicial function will be faced with a situation whereby legality is either sacrificed for the end of justice or justice is sacrificed for the sake of legality. In such a situation I am of the sacred view that, illegality may be permissible for the end of justice. Laws or rules are meant to be means to the end of justice, the moment a law or rule will be interpreted to promote injustice such a law or rule has become outdated.

As a prelude, it is settled law that, the test to be applied in considering whether evidence is admissible in a civil or criminal case is whether it is relevant to the matter in issue. See Oshunride v. Akande (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 455) 383, (1996) 6 SCNJ 193 at 199 - 200 - per Mohammed, JSC, Dr. Ufere Torti v. Chief Chris Ukpabi & Ors. (1984) 1 S.C. 370 at 412 - 143, (1984) ANLR 185 at 195; (1984) ANLR 185 at 195; (1984) 1 SCNLR 214.

The  common law principle on admissibility of illegally obtained evidence is that, once an evidence  is relevant to the issue in contention, then it is admissible and the court should not  concern itself with  whether the evidence was legally or illegally obtained, in as long as it is relevant to the issue in contention.

OGUNBIYI, JCA, in the case of Aregbesola v. Oyinlola (2010) 7-12 KLR (Pt.286) 2681 at 2737- 2739, paras. D- B expounded on the jurisprudence of the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence by relying on the dicta of eminent Nigerian jurists of the ranks of Eso, Obaseki and Aniagolu JJSC to wit:
“In the case of Sadau & Anor v State where the apex court relied on the case of Kuruma, Son of Kamiu v The Queen, at page 203 the Privy Council described the position of the law as follows:-
 “In their Lordships opinion the test to be applied in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue. If it is admissible the court is not concerned with how the evidence was obtained.”
See also Igbinovia v State (1981) 2 SC 5, 15-16 where Obaseki, JSC, quoting Lord Goddard in Kuruma v R. (1955) AC 197 PC at 24 stated and said:-

“When it is a question of admission of evidence, strictly, it is not whether the method of which it is obtained is tortuous but excusable, but whether what has been obtained is relevant to the issue being tried.”

This common law principle expounded above has now been codified in the Nigerian Evidence Act of 2011 in Sections 14 and 15 thus:

14. Evidence obtained
a)   improperly or in contravention of a law; or
b)   in consequence of an impropriety or of a contravention of a law;

shall  be admissible unless the court is of the opinion that the desirability of admitting the evidence is out-weighed by the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the manner in which the evidence was obtained.

15. For the purposes of section 14, the matters that the court shall take into account include-
a)   the probative value of the evidence;
b)   the importance of the evidence in the proceeding;
c)   the nature of the relevant offence. cause of action or defence and the nature of the subject-matter of the proceeding;
d)    the gravity of the impropriety or contravention;
e)   whether the impropriety or contravention was deliberate or reckless.
f)     whether any other proceeding (whether or not in a court) has been or is likely to be taken in relation to the impropriety or contravention; and
g)   (g) the difficulty. if any, of obtaining the evidence without impropriety or contravention of law.

Section 14 above gives the Court the discretion to exclude improperly obtained evidence, while Section 15 states the matters the court should take into consideration in exercising it discretion under Section 14.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THE RIGHTS OF AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD IN NIGERIA

Image
Edited By: Asykobi An illegitimate child has been referred to as a child born out of wedlock, while a legitimate child is an issue of wedlock. Plainly, a child born out of wedlock whose paternity has been acknowledged by his natural father is as much legitimate as one born in wedlock. That is not the case, however. A child born out of wedlock during a marriage is illegitimate under the Act, whether or not the child is acknowledged by the natural father; unless by custom, someone else has a prior claim to paternity of such a child. Where a child is born out of wedlock, the first question is who is entitled to the paternity of the child? The question is essential, particularly in a polygamous setting. The controversy as regards paternity has always been between the natural father and the mother’s father or the person who has paid the bride price on the mother. Customs vary. A majority of communities favor the claim of the man who had paid the bride price of the mother. This...
Read more

RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON UNDER THE NIGERIAN LAW

Image
Edited By : Asy'kobi Under the Nigerian criminal justice the constitutional right of an accused person is enshrined in Section 35 and 36 of the Constitution of  the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 such rights include, the right to be informed promptly in the language that he understands, the details and nature of the offence of the accused, the right to be given adequate time to prepare his defence, the right to defend himself in person or by legal practitioner of his own choice, the right to have an interpreter free of charge if he does not understand the language of the court, the right to have record of the proceeding kept and the right to have copies of this within seven days of the conclusion of the case, the right to remain silent during the trial, the right not to be tried and convicted twice for the same offence, the right to be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty and the right not to be charged for an unwritten offence. All these rights are aimed at ensurin...
Read more

IMMUNITY CLAUSE OF SECTION 308 OF THE NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION

Image
Edited by: Asy"kobi Meaning and limits of section  308 The provisions of section 308 of the Constitution came up for interpretation in the case of  Abacha vs. Fawehinmi,  wherein his lordship, Uwaifo, J.S.C., held thus: The immunity provided for does not apply to the person in question in his official capacity or to a civil or criminal proceeding in which such a person is only a nominal party. The immunity is to protect such a person from the harassment of his person while in office for his action done in his private capacity before or during his tenure in office. In fact in the present case, the suit is against the “Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces (General Sani Abacha) ” and it is in respect of his alleged action in his official capacity. The immunity provided for in the Constitution does not arise and does not apply. Also, in  Rotimi vs. MacGregor,  the then Military Governor of Western State, 1 st  appellant herein,...
Read more