UNIT 7

HEARSAY

Hearsay refers to an out-of-court statement made by someone other than the person testifying at the trial, which is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In other words, it is evidence of a statement made outside the court, presented to establish the truth of what the statement asserts. Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible in court due to concerns about its reliability, as the person who made the statement is not available for cross-examination.

NATURE OF HEARSAY

The nature of hearsay lies in its second-hand nature. It involves a witness recounting what someone else said, rather than providing firsthand knowledge of the events in question. This creates issues of reliability and credibility, as the original speaker is not available to be cross-examined. The rule against hearsay seeks to ensure that only evidence that can be tested through cross-examination is admitted in court.

RULE AGAINST HEARSAY

Under the Evidence Act, 2011, the rule against hearsay is firmly established. See section 37 of the Evidence Act which defines hearsay and states that hearsay evidence is inadmissible, except as provided by the Act. This rule is grounded in the principle that the reliability of evidence is best tested through cross-examination of the person who made the statement.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE AGAINST HEARSAY

Despite the general rule against hearsay, there are several exceptions under which hearsay evidence can be admitted in Nigerian courts. These exceptions recognize that in certain circumstances, hearsay evidence can be sufficiently reliable to warrant its admission.

1. Dying declarations: A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who believes they are about to die, concerning the cause or circumstances of their impending death. Such statements are admissible under Section 40 of the Evidence Act. The rationale is that a person who believes they are dying is unlikely to lie. See the case of R v. Ogbuewu (1949) 12 WACA 483.
2. Res gestae: Statements that are part of the res gestae, or events forming part of the subject matter under consideration, are admissible under Section 41 of the Evidence Act. These are statements made contemporaneously with the event, providing immediate context. See the case of R v. Bedingfield (1879) 14 Cox 341.
3. Declarations against interest: Statements made by a person against their own interest are admissible under Section 42 of the Evidence Act. The rationale is that people do not usually make statements that are detrimental to their own interests unless they are true. See the case of R v. Ademola (1946) 12 WACA 42.
4. Declarations in the course of duty: Statements made by a person in the course of their duty are admissible under Section 43 of the Evidence Act. These are statements made as part of the routine duties of a person, which are assumed to be reliable due to the regularity and consistency required by the duty. See the case of R v. Rice (1963) 1 All NLR 18.
5. Statements in public documents: Statements contained in public documents are admissible under Section 44 of the Evidence Act. Public documents are presumed to be accurate due to the official capacity in which they are made and maintained. See the case of Ibrahim v. The State (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 186) 399.
6. Prior statements of witnesses: Under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, prior statements of witnesses that are inconsistent with their testimony can be used to challenge their credibility. These statements can be admitted to show that the witness has made contradictory statements. See the case of Ogunleye v. The State (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 604) 548.
7. Family pedigree: Statements concerning family pedigree or tradition are admissible under Section 46 of the Evidence Act. These statements are considered reliable because they are passed down through generations and are unlikely to be fabricated. See the case of Okujagu v. Ishola (1957) 2 FSC 62.
8. Confessions: Confessions made by an accused person are admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. A confession is an acknowledgment of guilt by the accused and is considered highly reliable as it is against the person’s own interest. See the case of Nigerian Army v. Aminu-Kano (2010) LPELR-2013(SC).
9. Co-conspirators: Statements made by co-conspirators in furtherance of a conspiracy are admissible under Section 41 of the Evidence Act. These statements are made during the execution of the conspiracy and are considered part of the res gestae. See the case of R v. Blake (1844) 6 QB 126.
10. Business records: Business records are admissible under Section 51 of the Evidence Act. These are records made in the regular course of business and are considered reliable due to the systematic manner in which they are maintained. See the case of Savannah Bank of Nigeria Ltd v. S.O. Ajilo (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97) 305.
11. Reputation as to character: Statements concerning a person's reputation as to character are admissible under Section 82 of the Evidence Act. These statements provide insight into a person's character based on the opinion of the community. See the case of Ogudo v. State (2011) LPELR-2316(SC).

CONCLUSION

Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible in Nigerian courts due to its potential unreliability. However, the Evidence Act provides several exceptions to this rule, recognizing circumstances where hearsay can be deemed sufficiently reliable to be admitted. These exceptions include dying declarations, res gestae, declarations against interest, statements made in the course of duty, public documents, prior statements of witnesses, family pedigree, confessions, co-conspirators' statements, business records, and reputation as to character. Understanding these exceptions is crucial for the proper administration of justice, ensuring that reliable evidence is not excluded merely because it is hearsay.