Shaidu v. State (2026) 7 NWLR (Pt. 2041) 31 at 89 – 90, E – C: ‘With regard to the extra-judicial statements obtained from potential witnesses who were not called to testify and therefore were not cross-examined on exhibits P1, P3, P4, P5 and P6, it is trite that an extra-judicial statement by a potential witness who was not called to give evidence and have such statement subjected to the furnace of cross-examination, is devoid of any evidential or probative value. See Esangbedo v. State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 113)57 at 66 paragraph F; The State v. Ogbubunjo (2001) LPELR – 3223(SC), (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 698) 576; Afolabi v. The State (2021)LPELR (53501) 1 at 26-27, (2022) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1814) 201; Adedayo Oladele v. State (2021) LEGALPEDIA (CA) 14181; Afam Okeke v. The State (2016) LPELR – 40024 (CA); Igenti v.State (2013) LPELR – 20861 (CA).The exhibits were inadmissible in law and are accordingly expunged from the evidence of the respondent. PW1, the lone witness, was incompetent to tender any of the expunged exhibits. Indeed, the entirety of his evidence, save for his testimony wherein he stated that he saw the deceased in a pool of his blood with the neck cut, was based on hearsay as it is trite that the evidence of an investigating police officer which pertains to what a prospective witness told him during the course of his investigation is tantamount to hearsay which is inadmissible in law. The admissible evidence of an investigating police officer pertains to what he actually saw, heard and did during the course of his investigation. See Opolo v. The State (1977) 11 – 12 SC(reprint); Ugwumba v. State (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 296) 660 at668; Uko v. State (2019) LPELR – 48770 (CA); Joji v. Commissioner of Police (2023) LPELR – 60379 (CA). Based on the settled position of the law on the foregoing, the finding of fact by the lower court that the appellant was guilty of the murder of the deceased, Ali Alkali, is perverse and unsupported by the evidence on record as the respondent was only able to prove the death of Ali Alkali but was unable to prove before the lower court, a causative link between any act of the appellant and the death of Ali Alkali.’
EXTRA–JUDICIAL STATEMENT BY A PERSON NOT CALLED TO TESTIFY CANNOT BE RELIED UPON BY THE COURT
EXTRA–JUDICIAL STATEMENT BY A PERSON NOT CALLED TO TESTIFY CANNOT BE RELIED UPON BY THE COURT
Ngorka v. A.-G., Imo State (2026) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2056) 1 at 42, B—H: ‘The law is settled beyond peradventure that the extra-judicial statement made by a potential witness and who was not called to testify in court cannot be accorded any probative or evidential value. In Okoro v. State (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt.584) 181, this court opined thus: “A written account of what was told the police during investigation is hearsay evidence where the maker of the statement was not called as a witness in court. And being hearsay evidence, it is inadmissible. It would only be admissible to contradict the maker or test his credibility if he is made a witness in the case. In the instant case, Exhibit E which was a written account of what the appellant’s wife told the police was clearly inadmissible since she was not called as a witness in the case. The admission of it by the trial court was therefore wrongful.” Thus, the contents of the extra judicial statement of Caroline Azubuike, which was part proof of evidence, but not tendered in evidence and upon which counsel to the appellant predicated his entire contention, could not form the basis of any tenable or reasonable argument either before the Court of Appeal or this court, as attempted by counsel to the appellant. It could not be used to determine whether Caroline Azubuike was a vital witness or not. So, the question of the respondent failing to call a vital witness did not arise.’