As the defence counsel his trial plan will take into consideration the charge against the defendant, the law creating the offence allegedly committed by the accused, the defences available to the accused, evidence in support of same and witnesses that will support his case.
This is basically the strategy or line of argument. It can be said to be the logical or coherent historical account of the case related to the legal rules, principle and practice of the aspect of the law in question.
This is when the prosecution opens its case against the defendant by making an opening statement. In this statement he reviews the charge against the defendant, the facts leading up to his arraignment and the evidence to prove the case against the defendant. It is provided for in S.268 ACJL Lagos and S.300 ACJA. The defendant is also entitled to address the court after the case of the prosecution is concluded. S.301 ACJA, S.269(1) ACJL Lagos
Burden of proof is a party’s duty to prove a disputed assertion or charge. In criminal trials, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused; this is by virtue of S.36(5) CFRN 1999, S.135(2) Evidence Act. However, the “evidential burden of proof” may shift to the defendant where the law imposes it. See S.139(1)(3), S.140 Evidence Act, In a plea of autrefois acquit/convict etc.
Standard of proof is the duty of a party to prove a case by producing the quantum or level required by law. In criminal trial it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. S.135 Evidence Act
A Competent witness is one that is legally qualified to testify in court and Compellability refers to the legal obligation imposed on a witness to attend court and give evidence. All persons are competent to testify unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding questions put to them or giving rational answers. Sections 175,177,179,180,182 Evidence Act
Competence of a witness is largely determined by their understanding, intelligence, fitness, and mental or physical acuteness.
Yes there are, S.175 Evidence Act states; All persons shall be 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
An accused person is not a competent witness for the prosecution, particularly where he is charged alone and can’t be compelled to be one. However he is a competent witness for the defence but can’t be compelled to testify as he reserves the right not to testify. See S.181 Evidence Act
A child may give evidence in a criminal trial, however the child would not be sworn or affirmed. Before such evidence is taken the court will be satisfied that; the child is possessed of sufficient intelligence and understands the duty of speaking the truth. See S.209 Evidence Act, Okon v. The State (1998), Dagayya v. The State (2006)
A legal practitioner is ordinarily a competent witness, however for ethical reasons he is not competent and will suffer difficulties representing his client if his credibility is questioned after cross-examination. See Gachi v. State, Elabanjo v. Tijani (1986), Rule 20 Rules of Proffessional Conduct.
This is evidence which confirms in some material way the commission of an offence. Corroboration need not be direct evidence, it is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s connection with the crime. Mbele v. The State (1990)
Corroboration is required in the following circumstances:
a. Corroboration as a matter of law; in treason and treasonable offences (S.40-42 Criminal Code), evidence on charge of perjury (S.202 Evidence Act), unsworn evidence of a child (S.209 Evidence Act)
b. Corroboration as a matter of practice; evidence of co-accused (Okoro v. State), evidence of agent provocateur, evidence of tainted witness (Mbenu v. The State [1988])
Section 308 of the CFRN 1999 prevents the President, Vice-President, Governor, and Deputy-Governor from being compelled to testify by prohibiting court processes that would require their appearance during their time in office. Similarly, foreign diplomats are afforded the same protection under Section 1(1) of the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act.
Generally, there is no required number of witnesses to call to prove a case. Evidence of one credible witness is enough to secure a conviction. The prosecution is under no obligation to call every witness but those called must be sufficient. In Ali v. The State (1988) where only one witness out of the three witnesses was called, the Supreme Court held that it was sufficient to prove the case against the accused. See S.200 Evidence Act.