LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Witnesses – Evidence of Blood Relations – Caution Required
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The learned trial Judge warned himself on the evidence of the blood relations. He said: 'The court is not unaware of the caution with which evidence of blood relations should be viewed.' Having so cautioned himself he accepted evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ayoola, JSC, in Ubani v. State (2001) NLC-2072000(SC) at p. 4; Paras D–E.
"The learned trial Judge warned himself on the evidence of the blood relations. He said: 'The court is not unaware of the caution with which evidence of blood relations should be viewed.' Having so cautioned himself he accepted evidence of the prosecution witnesses."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Courts must exercise caution when evaluating evidence of blood relations (family members) of the victim. Such witnesses may be biased or have an interest in securing conviction. The trial judge must warn himself of the need for caution. After giving the warning, the court may still accept the evidence if satisfied of its truth. The caution does not render the evidence inadmissible—it affects weight. The failure to warn may lead to conviction being set aside. The warning must be explicit. The principle recognises the potential for bias while allowing credible family evidence. The court must demonstrate awareness of the risk. The appellate court will review whether the warning was given and properly applied.
