Previous Inconsistent Statements of a Witness in Nigeria

Abstract

The attitude of courts to previous inconsistent statements of witnesses is primarily informed by the premium placed on the most credible evidence. A vintage rationale for this attitude states that:“The character of a witness for habitual veracity is an essential ingredient in his credibility: for a man who is capable of uttering a deliberate falsehood is in most cases capable of doing so under the solemn sanction of an oath. If therefore it appears that he has formerly said or written the contrary of that which he has now sworn (unless the reason of his having done so is satisfactorily accounted for), his evidence should not have much weight….”