Abstract
The law of evidence is, without exaggeration or magnification, undoubtedly one of the most important law subjects. This is so because in the conduct and determination of cases in court, the rules of evidence play prominent role in that, they determine which facts are legally admissible and the legal means or methods of attempting to establish those facts.
Generally, when a case is before the court, the court by substantive and procedural laws, has to conduct an enquiry into the facts of the case, draw inferences from those facts and in addition, listen to the legal arguments canvassed by the parties or their counsel before giving its verdict.
Consequently, a thorough understanding and a conceptual clarification of the term ‘judicial evidence’ and the rules governing the admissibility of facts presented before the Courts becomes not only relevant but absolutely important.
This paper shall attempt to examine the intricacies surrounding the concept of the law of evidence and clear the intellectual and jurisprudential uncertainty or confusion enshrouding the inclusionary and exclusionary rules of evidence.
Keywords; judicial evidence, inclusionary rules exclusionary rules, facts, relevant, admissible
INTRODUCTION
Judicial evidence plays a critical role in resolving legal conflicts and significantly influences the outcome of court proceedings by establishing the facts with precision. However, the concept of judicial evidence is often clouded by unclarity and imprecision, especially regarding its nature and the application of inclusionary and exclusionary rules.
The Evidence Act of 2011, which stands as the cornerstone legislation for evidence law, stops short of offering a precise definition of ‘judicial evidence’ or articulating the inclusionary and exclusionary rules in clear terms.
Nonetheless, through its provisions on what constitute admissible evidence, the Act indirectly tackles these notions. The lack of direct definitions contributes to the obscurity of the term ‘evidence’ and fosters a constrained comprehension of the rules that dictate what evidence can be admitted in court.
This paper endeavours to dissect the complexities that shroud the concept of judicial evidence and the criteria for the legal admissibility of facts. It aims to provide a clear definition of ‘evidence’ as it pertains to judicial proceedings and to shed light on the meaning, essence, significance and implication of the inclusionary and exclusionary rules.
These rules are essential as they form the foundation upon which the legal acceptability of presented facts is judged. The clarification of these elements will be pursued through an analysis of scholarly perspectives and pivotal judicial decisions.
- The Meaning and scope of Judicial Evidence
Like most subjects and legal phrases, it is difficult, if not impossible, to proffer a generally satisfactory and acceptable definition of the word, ‘evidence’, notwithstanding its significance and the frequency with which it is called to question at every stage of trials in court.
Due to the absence of a statutory definition for the term ‘Evidence’, some of the definitions proposed by renowned authors and jurists shall be examined.
Aguda in his work, the Law of Evidence in Nigeria, adopted an explanatory approach in defining evidence when he stated as follows:
“Judicial evidence is the means by which facts are proved, but excluding inferences and arguments. It is common knowledge that a fact can be proved by the oral testimony of persons who perceived the fact, or by the production of documents, or by the inspection of things and places – all these come within the meaning of judicial evidence.”
According to Phipson, evidence “means the testimony, whether oral, documentary or real, which may be legally received in order to prove or disprove some facts in dispute.”
Similarly, Black’s Law Dictionary defines evidence as something, including testimony, documents and tangible objects that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact.
A noteworthy judicial attempt as to the meaning of evidence was provided by the Supreme Court in the case of Akintola & Anor v. Solano, when it stated as follows:
“If a thing is evident, it does not require evidence. What therefore is evidence? Simply put, it is the means by which any matter of fact the truth of which is submitted to investigation may be established or disproved. Evidence is therefore necessary to prove or disprove an issue of fact.”
Gleaned from the foregoing, evidence in relation to judicial proceedings, otherwise called judicial evidence can be referred to as the method or means of proving or disproving the existence of facts which are legally admissible before the Court.
The scope of evidence has been admirably stated by Professor Noakes as consisting of:
a. “facts which are legally admissible; and
b. The legal means of attempting to prove such facts.”
- The Inclusionary and Exclusionary Rules of Evidence
As earlier noted, judicial evidence is, essentially, concerned with the question of which facts are legally admissible and the legal means by which they may be proved. To determine the question of which facts are legally admissible, recourse must be had to the Exclusionary and Inclusionary rules of Evidence.
The inclusionary and exclusionary rules of evidence is the heart of the law of evidence, as they govern the admissibility of facts, which in essence is the first limb of Professor’s Nokes’s exposition on the scope of judicial evidence, when he opined that evidence consists of facts which are legally admissible.
Though the Evidence Act did not specifically state or define the term ‘Exclusionary and Inclusionary rules of evidence’, the rules are however captured and revealed in Section 1 of the Evidence Act.
1. Inclusionary Rule of Evidence:
The Evidence Act by virtue of section 1, made provision for the inclusionary rule thus:
“Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non – existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.”
By this provision, evidence may be tendered and given of only two classes of facts viz: facts in issue, and facts relevant to the fact in issue.
In other words, a litigant may in any proceedings give evidence of facts in issue and facts relevant to the facts in issue. This is the inclusionary rule of evidence. Consequently, inclusionary rules of evidence mean the principle that evidence is only admissible if is the evidence of the fact in issue or relevant to the fact in issue.
A fact in issue is any fact from which either by itself or in connection with other facts the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability or disability asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding necessarily follows. Simply, facts in issue are all those facts which must be proved to establish a claim and defense to a claim. Relevant fact, though not defined by the Act, is a fact which is so connected, directly or indirectly with a fact in issue in an action that it tends to prove or disprove the facts in issue.
Essence of the Inclusionary Rule
From the provision of section 1 of the Evidence Act, the primary essence of the inclusionary rule of evidence is relevancy, which stands as the hallmark of admissibility. Consequently, evidence that does not directly pertain to the facts in issue or is not relevant to the facts in issue is deemed inadmissible.
This rule streamlines the judicial process by preventing the court’s attention from being diverted to extraneous matters. It ensures the court’s focus remains on evaluating and admitting only those facts that are pertinent to the proceedings, thereby excluding irrelevant information that could otherwise encumber the judicial process.
2. Exclusionary Rule of Evidence
The exclusionary rule is contained in the proviso to Section 1 of the Evidence Act and it is aptly captured thus:
a.) the court may exclude evidence of facts which though relevant or deemed to be relevant to the issue, appears to it to be too remote to be material in all the circumstances of the case; and
b.) this section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force.
By the above proviso (a) (b), the court may exclude fact which, though relevant, or deemed to be relevant to the issue, appears to it to be too remote to be material in all circumstances of the case. This discretion is mainly exercised in favour of the accused in criminal trials.
Where evidence of his character is admissible, the court may disallow it, if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. Also, a fact which a party is not entitled in law to prove, for instance, privileged facts or evidence amounting to hearsay, will not be admissible.
From the above analysis, exclusionary rule simply means the exclusion or suppression of evidence which is not evidence of the fact in issue or relevant to the fact in issues in any legal proceeding.
Essence of Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule is designed to exclude evidence obtained in contravention of the provision of the law such as privileged facts, involuntary confessions, hearsay evidence, inter alia. Also, the essence is to exclude evidence which though relevant or deem to be relevant in issue, appears it to be too remote to the material in all circumstances of the case.
Brennan and Marshall maintained that “the chief deterrent function of the exclusionary rule is” far beyond the simple prevention of the contravention of the provisions of the law but span to the misconduct of litigant as they will employ all manner of evidence to establish their case before the court. The rule tends to promote institutional compliance with the requirements of the law on the part of both the litigant and the judges generally.
CONCLUSION
Conclusively, the concept of evidence is central to the legal system in Nigeria, underpinning the pursuit of justice and the resolution of disputes. From the foregoing, it can be distilled that Judicial Evidence deals with the legal admissibility of facts and the means or method of proving such facts. The inclusionary and exclusionary rules of evidence form the foundation for determining the admissibility of evidence in Nigerian courts. According to the inclusionary rule, the admissibility of any fact hinges on its relevance; thus, every admissible fact must be relevant to the matter at hand.
Conversely, the exclusionary rule posits that not all relevant facts are admissible, as a fact may be relevant yet inadmissible because it is excluded by law or by the discretion of the judge, who may consider such fact too remote to be material in all the circumstances of the case.