WITNESSES: WHAT VALUE DO THEY HAVE OR WHAT PURPOSE DO THEY SERVE IN OUR LEGAL PROCEEDINGS? if u have been opportuned to be in a Court witnessing a case in which so many witnesses are involved, u will be tempted to ask the question... What realy is the value of a witness in a case? Does subpoening, bringing, or calling a witness increase ur chances of winning the case? I dont think so. Reason being that I have witnessed several cases in which a party calls as much plenitudes of witnesses as could be called, yet he losed the case to the other party who called no witness. This is disgusting. Then my question is, what were the value of the witnesses he called? Are witnesses part of the Evidence presented before the court? The Law is that calling witnesses does not mean u have evidence before the court. It only mean that u have called people who will help confirm, corroborate or give support to the existing independent evidence already presented before the court, and if u have no available evidence,then the witnesses themselves are worthless and of no value. That means witnesses themselves are not Evidence, they are only meant to prove evidence. Which means if u dont have evidence available before the court, then even if u like, go and call the whole world as witnesses, ur case will fail. Some times U see some counsels paying much emphasis on witnesses, then u will begin to wonder whether it is by calling witness that make u win a case.. I still will ask, if calling witnesses does not make one win his case, why then do counsels trouble themselves much about calling witnesses? Some even go as far as booking flight for some body in United States to come to Nigeria and testify. I dont think that they will have no objective in doing that. What then is the purpose of witnesses, and why are counsels always interesred in calling witnesses? We win case not by calling witness, but by the compellability and admissibility of evidence available before the court and witnesses are not evidence. Lets go through some numbers of cases to see if these questions can be solved. It is expedient to note here that the Holy bible gives much emphasis on the calling of witnesses. Example, in Deuteronomy chapter 17 V 6, it reads. ... who ever is worthy of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or more witness but shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. following that section of the scripture, it means that even if some one is guilty, if the witnesses are not up to two, he shall be set free, but whether he is guilty or not, provided the witnesses are more than two, he will be convicted. Did I interpret wrongly? This is a wrong version of what is obtainable in our legal system as much emphases is being placed on witnesses, and one can win his case based on the number of witnesses he calls. How ever, that bible verse cannot totally be said to be atavistical in nature, reason being that there are still some sections of our Evidence Act which provide that some one shall not be convited of some certain offences with just one single witness alone Example, sections 201, 202,203, 204.etc, Evidence Act. By these sections, it means that a Nigerian cannot be convicted of treason, over speeding, perjury and sedition with just the testimony of a witness. How ever, this is where witnesses are expressly required by statute. Here we are interested in when witnesses are not expressly required by statute. In ADELUMOLA v STATE( 1988) 1 NSCC 465 @ 472. In the case above, Oputa JSC said that... the truth is not discovered by majority of witnesses nor by counting heads or hands, but if the evidence of one witness is believed, it can secure even a murder case.. By this case, it means that the prosecution without even calling any witness at all, can secure a murder conviction. Also in OGUNBAYO V THE STATE(2007) 8 NWLR PT 157@ 177 It was held in the above case that witnesses are not required at all, unless the Statute provided so. By those two cases above, one can see that even without calling any witness, he can win his case. Calling more than the number of witnesses required does not necessarily give any counsel an edge over the other. So does it realy mean that it is a waste of time for counsels to go searching for witnesses? Not necessarily a waste. Reason being that though calling witnesses cannot make u win any case, but not calling them when they are necessary can make u lose a case. Lets take a critical view of this important case on the importance of calling witness. STATE V AJIE(2000) FWLR (PT 16) 28, 31. The case is that the respondent was charged under section 319 CC. For the murder of one barrister Okpara. His contention is that he was held by the deceased, and One Onyebuchi Okoro ( a vital witness) who was armed with a stick and that the same Onyebuchi Okoro wanted to hit him the stick so he defended it and the stick hit the deceased who later died from the injury sustained from the stick. Despite the contention of the accused that it was Onyebuchi Okoro who accidentally killed the deceased and not him, the prosecution did not call the said Onyebuchi Okoro as a witness all through the proceeding. How ever, the trial court still convicted the accused. Meaning that according to the Trial Court, the witness Onyebuchi Okoro is not necessary or needed in securing the conviction of the accused. On appeal, the conviction was set aside and the Supreme Court acquited him and held that the failure of the prosecution to call the said Onyebuchi Okoro as witness was fatal to their case. That the prosecution losed its case because it did not call the said Onyebuchi Okoro as witness. flowing from the case of the SC above, does it mean that if the proscution had called Onyebuch as witness, that it would have won the case? And that it would have been the calling of Onyebuchi Okoro that would have made it win the case? What about if the prosecution had other evidence which would have corroborated its case convincingly that it was the accused who killed the deceased and no other person, would the prosecution still have losed its case because it did not call Onyebuchi Okoro as witness? What esential value do u realy think that the witness Onyebuchi Okoro is to the prosecution? Can the witness Onyebuchi Okoro serve any legal or practical purpose that other clear and pungent evidence wouldnt have served? What realy is the value and essence of calling multitudes of witnesses in our legal proceeding? The outcome of any legal proceeding, is it dependent upon witnesses? Please share ur opinion
Posted on: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 20:50:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015