Overview
Introduction The statement on oath of a witness (the statement) constitutes the totality of that witness’s written evidence before the court. The facts deposed to, as well as the documents sought to be relied upon, derive their evidential force from the statement. Consequently, where a witness statement is incompetent or absent, the testimony of that witness, together with any annexed documents, becomes incapable of sustaining the case in which it is relied upon. The object of this rule is to secure fairness in trial preparation and ensure that no party is taken by surprise. Beyond this, the requirement that a witness statement be made on oath serves a more fundamental purpose.
By insisting that statements be sworn before a designated oath officer, the law seeks to impress upon the deponent the solemnity of the testimonial act, discourage falsehood, and provide an objective assurance of authenticity to the court and opposing parties. This consideration is particularly important in modern trial practice, where written depositions increasingly replace viva voce evidence-in-chief. By the provisions of the relevant oath laws, including Sections 1, 2, 6 and 10 of the Oaths Act 2004 and Sections 112 and 117 of the Evidence Act 2011, a statement is expected to be sworn before a competent authority and not before parties or their counsel. Non-compliance with this requirement raises questions as to the competence of the statement and, in appropriate cases, may go to the root of the witness’s evidence.
In practice, counsel often seeks to undermine an opposing party’s case by eliciting, under cross-examination, admissions that a witness signed or swore to the statement in a lawyer’s office, at home, or elsewhere outside the presence of an oath officer. Judicial responses to such situations have not been entirely consistent, with courts divided between strict compliance and a more liberal emphasis on presumptions of regularity and absence of prejudice. It is against this background that the Supreme Court’s decision in Katagum v. Umar & Anor becomes particularly instructive. Request the full insight below.
