ABSTRACT
The topic under surveillance is “An Appraisal of Hearsay Rule in Nigeria and so it goes beyond a mere determination of what the Hearsay Rule translates to and touches on the actual working and operation of the rule within contemporary Nigerian society. We have considered the background of the rule in Nigeria and discovered that Nigeria is a country where rumours and hearsays statements are treated as concrete facts and this finding justifies the exclusion of the rule against hearsay as admissible evidence. We have examined the state of the law before the formulation of the rule, origin of the rule, things within the rule, application of the rule in Nigeria, reasons for exclusion of the rule in evidence, exceptions to the rule under the Nigerian Evidence Act, 2011. We have also undertaken to review the exceptions provided at law with the object of ascertaining the adequacy or inadequacy of the exceptions so provided under the Evidence Act, 2011.We have also raised the questions whether the Hearsay Rule is relevant to the Nigerian Legal System, what is the attitude of Nigerian courts to the rule and what challenges does the rule pose to the judicial arm of government? These and many other issues, including recommendations made as to how these challenges may be tackled are discussed herein.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.2 STATE OF THE LAW BEFORE THE EMERGENCE OF HEARSAY RULE
Evidence includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) which were proved by evidence, to demonstrate an assertion’s truth. Admissible evidence is that which a court receives and considers for the purposes of deciding a particular case.
In any judicial proceeding, to make any fact admissible before the court of law, either in the favour of any pre established fact or to establish any fact or in against of any pre established fact, or to establish any contrary fact, the fact which are to be admissible must be relevant to become admissible before the court of law. Thus, it is necessary to know which facts can be taken as relevant facts and which are not. Relevancy of any fact can be ascertained by bringing it within the purview of Sections 5 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Any statement which is an hearsay statement, to be admissible as an evidence, its relevancy is to be considered. The general principle of common law underlies that an hearsay statement should not be used in the court of law as this kind of statement are not relevant and can not be solely relied upon. This principle of common rule is also inherited by the Indian Law in the Section 60 of Indian Evidence Act, which insists that all oral testimony that is to be admitted by the court must be direct.
Hearsay evidence can be defined as ‘an assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings’ which becomes ‘inadmissible as evidence of any fact asserted’. The admissibility of this kind of Indirect evidence are excluded by the virtue of Sec 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, but as the history of Hearsay evidence lies to the era of Common law, its exclusion being one of its major principles, so exception to these principle are also provided by the common law.
