A competent witness is one considered
in law as a fit and proper person to testify. This is competence to give
evidence in general as distinct from competence to give a particular type of
evidence as in the case of opinion evidence by experts. Whereas in the former
the basis is mainly possession of unimpaired intellect, the latter depends in
most cases on special skill.
The
general rule governing competency of witnesses is provided for in Section 175(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011,
which provides to the effect that all persons are competent to testify unless
the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions
put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by reason of
tender years, extreme old age, disease whether of body or mind, or any other
cause of the same kind.
From the foregoing provision, it is
clear that competency is determined exclusively by the capacity of a person to
understand the questions put to him and furnish rational answers thereto.
Indeed, the main cause of incompetency of a person as a witness is defective
intellect which prevents him from giving rational testimony.
The legal and practical implication
of the foregoing is that the persons specifically mentioned in section 175(1) of the Evidence Act 2011,
that is, a minor, an aged person, and one suffering from infirmity, whether of
the body or mind are not necessarily incompetent witnesses. They become
incompetent only if, by reason of their ‘status’ either as an infant, aged
person or one suffering from infirmity, they do not understand the questions
put to them and ipso facto cannot
furnish rational answers thereto.
Accordingly, it will be an
unsustainable legal proposition to say that a person of unsound mind is not a
competent witness. He only becomes incompetent if, by reason of his mental
infirmity he cannot understand the questions put to him and furnish rational
answers to them. It is submitted for the purposes of clarity therefore that a
person is a competent witness based on two conditions; viz, ability to understand questions put to him
and ability to furnish rational answers
to them. These two conditions are cumulative conditions and both must be
satisfied for a person to have legal capacity to testify. Therefore, everybody
is a competent witness subject only to the conditions stipulated above.
A
dumb person is a competent witness. He may give his evidence in any other
manner in which he can make it intelligible as by writings or by signs. Such
writing must, however, be written and the signs must be made in open court.
Evidence so given is deeded to be oral evidence: section 176(2) of the Evidence Act 2011.
The question of competence to testify generally is, as
in the case of competence to testify as an expert, decided by the judge.
Relationship in any form with either party to the proceeding is irrelevant for
the purpose of determination of competency to testify. Such relationship may,
however, possibly affect the weight of the witness’s testimony. In Hausa v State (1994) 7-8 SCNJ (Pt. 1) 144 @
161, it was stated that “there is no law which prohibits blood relations
from testifying for the prosecution where such a relation is the victim of the
crime committed”.
© Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com, 2016. (All Rights Reserved) Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
© Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com, 2016. (All Rights Reserved) Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.