A court has a duty to disallow a question which is not relevant to the proceedings; but a question which is relevant can freely be put to a witness and must be answered, although the weight to be attached to the answer is an entirely different matter. Thus relevance and admissibility are closely knit together while the question of weight appertains to the province of evaluation and should, as always, be kept in separate compartment.
– Achike JCA. Adeyemi v. Edigin (1990)
SHARE ON
The law is trite that unless where the law prescribes otherwise, there can be a conviction based on the evidence of a sole witness. Such evidence of a sole witness must be cogent, strong, credible and reliable before a Court can rely to found a conviction. See Oduneye v The State (2001) 2 NWLR (pt 697) 311, Abogede v State (1996) 5 NWLR (pt 449) 279 at 280, Ighalo v The State (2016) LPELR – 40840 (SC). 27 Ordinarily, the credibility of evidence does not depend on the number of witnesses who testify on a particular issue, but it depends on whether the evidence of a single witness is believable and accepted by the Court and if so believed by the Court, then it is sufficient to ground a conviction. SeeAli v The State (1988) 1 NWLR (pt 68) 1, Lase v The State (2017) LPELR – 42468 (SC), Abogede v The State (1996) 4 SCNJ 227.
— J.I. Okoro, JSC. Chibuike Ofordike V. The State (SC.695/2016, 2019)
Bello, JSC, in AJIDE v. KELANI (1985) 3 NWLR (pt.12) 248 at 200 – 261, (1985) 16 NSCC (pt.2) 1298 at 1309, stated the options thus – “He may cross-examine the witness on the writing and if he is satisfied with the answer given by the witness or if he does not intend to pursue the matter further, he is not required to show the writing to the witness or to prove the writing. But if the cross-examiner intends to contradict the witness by the writing, then he must show the writing to witness and call his attention to those part of the writing which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting the witness. It is only after this condition has been complied with that the writing can be admitted in evidence.”
Thus, in considering and ascribing probative values to the evidence of witnesses, a Court is under duty to appraise it to see whether they are admissible, cogent, credible and probable. Thus, in the discharge of this onerous but very essential duty, a Court will be wary of crediting any witness who has either been so discredited or his so inconsistent on material facts in contention between the parties. It is for this reason that it is settled law that no witness who has given materially inconsistent evidence on oath is entitled to the honour of credibility and such a witness does not deserve to be treated as a truthful witness. See Ezemba v. Ibeneme (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 789) 623.
— B.A. Georgewill JCA. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Ors. (CA/L/427/2016, 9 Mar 2018)
In OCHIBA v. THE STATE (2011) LPELR 8245 (SC) where it was held as follows: “I need to say it that it is settled Law that the prosecution was not obliged to call a host of witnesses in order to discharge the burden placed on it to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt as dictated by section 138(1) of the Evidence Act. A sole witness like P.w.1, who has given credible and clear evidence which was believed by the trial Judge, will suffice. See OBUE V THE STATE (1976) 2 SC 141; SADAM v THE STATE [2010] 12 SC (PT.1) 73 at 87-88; AKPAN v THE STATE [1991] 3 NWLR (PT 182) 695”.
Okonofua & Anor v. The State (1981) 6-7 SC 1 at 18 where this court per Bello, J.S.C., as he then was, dealing with the same subject put the matter thus:- “The correct state of the law relating to the duty of the prosecution to call witnesses, whether their names appear on the back of the information or not, has been recently stated by this court in these terms: ‘The law imposes no obligation on the prosecution to call a host of witnesses. All the prosecution need do is to call enough material witnesses in order to prove its case; and in so doing, it has a discretion in the matter.’ ” See also Samuel Adaje v. The State (1979) 6-9 SC 18 at 28.
However, and for whatever it is worth, the law is settled that a tainted witness is a person who is either an accomplice or who on the evidence may be regarded as having some purpose of his/her own to serve – see R vs Enahoro (1964) NMLR 65; Ifejirika vs The State (1999) 3 NWLR (pt. 593) 59; Ogunlana vs The State (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt. 395) 266.
— W.S.N. Onnoghen, JSC. Moses v State [2006] – S.C.308/2002
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry