LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Previous Statements – Improper Use of Previous Inconsistent Statements
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A previous inconsistent statement cannot be used to discredit a witness unless it is shown to the witness and used in cross-examination, as required by sections 199 and 209 of the Evidence Act.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwais, JSC, in Adele v. State (1995) NLC-411994(SC) at pp. 14–15; Paras C–A.
"I think it is necessary to point out at this stage that the use made of Exhibit M, by the Court of Appeal to discredit the evidence of P.W.1 is quite wrong as it offends the provisions of sections 199 and 209 of the Evidence Act… The statement was not shown to P.W.1 nor was it used by the defence to cross-examine her in order to discredit her testimony."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Before a previous inconsistent statement can be used to impeach a witness, the witness must be confronted with it during cross-examination. The principle is codified in the Evidence Act. The witness must have the opportunity to explain the inconsistency. Failure to comply renders the statement inadmissible for impeachment. The court cannot use the statement on its own. The rule applies to both criminal and civil proceedings. The opposing party must follow the proper procedure. The court will disregard evidence obtained in violation of the rule.