Introduction

Hearsay evidence has long been regarded with skepticism in legal proceedings due to concerns about its reliability and fairness. Under Nigerian law, the general rule is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. However, this principle is not absolute. Various statutory provisions and judicial precedents recognize exceptions that permit hearsay evidence in specific circumstances.

This article examines the admissibility of hearsay evidence under Nigerian law, referencing key statutes and case laws.

Understanding Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is defined as any statement made outside the courtroom that is presented in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. This definition is encapsulated in Section 37 of the Evidence Act, 2011, which expressly prohibits hearsay evidence unless it falls within certain exceptions.

The section provides thus:

“Hearsay means a statement:

1. Oral or written made otherwise than by a witness in a proceeding; or
2. Contained or recorded in a book, document or any record whatever, proof of which is not admissible under any provision of this Act, which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of providing the truth of the matter stated in it.”

Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Evidence

Despite the general prohibition, the Evidence Act, 2011, and case law recognize several instances where hearsay evidence is admissible. Here are a few instances:

1. Dying Declarations A statement made by a person who believes they are about to die concerning the cause of their death is admissible. Section 40 of the Evidence Act provides for this exception, and the Nigerian Supreme Court upheld this principle in R v. Ogbuewu (1949) 12 WACA 483.
2. Statements Made in the Course of Business Under Section 41 of the Evidence Act, statements made by a person in the ordinary course of their professional duty are admissible. In Akinfe v. The State (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 85) 729, the Supreme Court admitted a police officer’s record of a witness’s statement made in the course of duty.
3. Statements Against Interest Statements made by a person that are against their own interest are admissible under Section 42 of the Evidence Act. In Ojukwu v. Onwudiwe (1984) 1 SCNLR 247, the Supreme Court admitted a statement made by a party that contradicted their claim in court.
4. Public Records and Documents Section 43 of the Evidence Act allows hearsay evidence in the form of official public records, such as certified documents from government agencies. In Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 273) 1, electoral documents were admitted as evidence despite being prepared by third parties.
5. Evidence Given in a Previous Proceeding Where a witness is unavailable due to death or incapacity, their testimony from a previous judicial proceeding may be admitted under Section 46 of the Evidence Act. In Agbaje v. The State (2017) LPELR-42014(SC), the Supreme Court permitted the admission of previous testimonies where witnesses were deceased.
6. Expert Reports By virtue of Section 68, Opinions and analyses from experts may be admissible even if the expert is not physically present in court.

Nigerian courts have consistently reinforced these exceptions while emphasizing that hearsay evidence must meet reliability and necessity tests. In Suberu v. The State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1197) 586, the Supreme Court stressed that while hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, courts must evaluate whether it falls within a recognized exception.

Conclusion

Hearsay evidence is not always inadmissible in Nigerian courts. The law recognizes various circumstances under which such evidence can be accepted, particularly where it is necessary and reliable. The Evidence Act, 2011, and case law provide a structured framework for determining when hearsay evidence may be admitted, ensuring both fairness and the integrity of judicial proceedings. Legal practitioners must, therefore, carefully evaluate the admissibility of hearsay evidence in light of statutory exceptions and judicial precedents.