LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Previous Inconsistent Statements – Court’s Power to Require Production During Trial
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The proviso in the Evidence Act allows courts to require production of previous inconsistent statements or documents and thereafter use them for the court's own purposes; such power can only be exercised during the trial.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uche Omo, JSC, in Sambo v. State (1993) NLC-1331991(SC) at pp. 13; Para A.
"The proviso thereto set out above allows the court to require the production of such a statement/document and thereafter to use same for its own purpose. Such power can only be exercised during the trial."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Courts may require production of previous inconsistent statements and use them independently to evaluate evidence and assess credibility, not merely for impeachment. This power differs from parties’ use: parties impeach witnesses while courts use statements to determine truth. Critical limitation: the power exists only “during trial”—courts must require production and examine statements before trial concludes. The power cannot be exercised post-trial or on appeal. This enables courts to actively seek truth, examine inconsistencies, and prevent mischaracterization of statements. However, the temporal limitation prevents post-trial record supplementation and maintains the distinction between trial court fact-finding and appellate review.