This Case Commentary is written by Makilolo Tamara-Brakemi Blessing, a Law Graduate of Igbinedion University Okada

CASE DETAILS

Court: Supreme Court of Nigeria

Equivalent Citation: 1998 SC.131/97

Bench: JUSTICE SALIHU MODDIBO ALFA BELGORE, JUSTICE ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI, JUSTICE IDRIS LEGBO KUTIGI, JUSTICE SYLVESTER UMARU.

Decided on: 24th day of April, 1998

Case type: Criminal case

Parties:-

Appellant: Clement Oguonze

Respondent: The State

ABSTRACT

The case of Ogounzie V. State interrogates several legal doctrines such as the issue of relevancy and admissibility in the law of evidence, corroboration, ingredients of murder, tainted witness, inter alia. For this case commentary, our discussion shall be streamlined to the issue of tainted witness which is an integral part of the court decision in that case.

In the succeeding paragraphs of this discussion, recourse shall be made to the definition of a tainted witness, as well as the implication or rationale of the legal doctrine under our jurisprudence. We shall also attempt to criticize the court judgment in this regard and conclusively, we shall round off the commentary by taking a stand as to the manner, in which the court should resolve issues of tainted witnesses.

(keywords; tainted witness, corroboration).

INTRODUCTION

The legal concept of who a tainted witness is has been greeted with the problem of non-universality. In other words, it does not kneel or bow to any general or universally accepted definition. However, the courts have over time, adopted a definition that has been followed by other courts of record when they are faced with the issue of who a tainted witness is. We take the liberty to reproduce in extension, the definition of who is a tainted witness as defined by the court in OLUSEGUN AJIBOLA V STATE;

“a tainted witness is a person, who is either an accomplice or who, by the evidence he gives, may and could be regarded as having some personal purpose to serve.”

A tainted witness may also be defined as a person or a party that has a personal interest in a matter.

The practical and legal implication of the foregoing is the effect that for a person to qualify as a tainted witness, he must have a personal purpose to serve in that case.

It is important to draw our minds with a pencil to the fact that the law is settled beyond any peradventure of doubt and that the evidence of a tainted witness should always be treated with considerable caution. Nonetheless, the fact that there is a blood relation between the victim and the prosecution witness is not sufficient in itself to make the witness a tainted witness whose evidence is unreliable unless corroborated. Credible facts must be adduced to establish that the witness had a purpose to serve and that the evidence is self-serving. See IDAGU V. STATE (2018) LPELR-4434 SC 44-47.

Importantly, the rationale behind the legal concept of tainted witness is to avoid bias in evidence given in court that may prejudice the other party against whom such testimony is given and also, the weight that is to be attached to a piece of evidence given.

Having meticulously laid a foundation as to the definition and rationale behind tainted witness under our jurisprudence, we shall, in the succeeding paragraphs of this paper comment on the case supra.

COMMENTARY ON THE CASE OF OGUONZE V. THE STATE

The commentary of this case falls into proper perspective when we underscore the facts of this case.

Summarily, the facts of this case are that the Appellant was the Assistant Superintendent of the Police, and from the Charge presented at the trial court by the prosecution, the deceased and his younger brother were traveling from Lagos to Awomowa and that at a road checkpoint, the Appellant and his police team signaled them to stop. Due to the high speed of the deceased, he did not see them on time, and he slightly passed them. When he noticed, he turned to meet the policemen and answer questions as to why he stopped. At that point, the Appellant asked the deceased a question that he did not hear, thereafter the Appellant moved backward and shot him. The deceased junior brother who was with him immediately drove away to the teaching hospital, unfortunately on arrival, he was certified dead.

COUNSEL SUBMISSION/RESOLUTIONS

At trial, learned counsel for the Appellant argued inter Alia that he and his men were on anti-crime patrol and they received information that robbers were operating on that road hence, they had to stop and search all private cars. The Appellant argued that the cause of the deceased death was a result of struggling with the Appellant's pistol and that it was an accidental discharge.

The trial court, after an evaluation of the evidence sentenced him to death. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed this conviction and even the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.

On the issue of PW4 being a tainted witness, the Supreme Court stated in very unequivocal and unambiguous language that PW4 is neither an accomplice to the offense charge nor was it shown at any point during the trial that he had any purpose of his own to serve or that he was in any way biased in his testimony before the court and also, the mere fact that he was the brother of the deceased without more cannot render his testimony unacceptable without corroboration. Learned justices of the Supreme Court relied on the case of CHRISTOPHER AREHIA & ANOR V THE STATE (1982) NSCC 91.

The court further held that it is true that the prosecution witness in question is related to the deceased but the fact that the witnesses were related to the deceased does not mean that they were not competent to testify for the prosecution.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

From the facts Supra, it is evident that the justices of the Supreme Court in their sagacity and about the extant provisions of the law, properly resolved the issue of a tainted witness which is the nucleus of this case commentary, I therefore align myself with this decision intoto!

The fact that pw4 was the only eyewitness at the locus in quo is not sufficient enough to render his testimony incredible, incompetent, or unacceptable. Provided that the ingredients of competence and credibility have been ipso facto established, the court is bound to attach a mountain of weight on his testimony as the same was properly so done in this case. The court also commented on the fact that the Appellant could not sufficiently demonstrate how the testimony of Pw4 should be deemed unacceptable and I align myself with this position too.

Of course, it is settled law that he who alleges must prove. “Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio.” A party who claims that a witness statement should not be relied upon must adduce credible facts and sufficient evidence to prove the same. See the case of Zaman V State (2015) AELR 6350(CA).

In line with the aforementioned legal principles, I reiterate my submission that the Supreme Court was correct in reaching its decision.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision in Oguneze v State (1998) was a just and fair outcome, considering the facts and legal principles involved. The court correctly evaluated the evidence and resolved the issue of a tainted witness, finding that PW4's testimony was credible and competent despite being the deceased's brother. The Appellant's failure to demonstrate why PW4's testimony should be deemed unacceptable further solidified the court's decision.

This case highlights the importance of proper evaluation of evidence and the application of legal principles in criminal cases. The Supreme Court's reliance on established case law, such as Christopher Arehia & Anor v The State (1982), demonstrates the consistency and predictability of the legal system.

Ultimately, the case serves as a reminder that the burden of proof lies with the party making allegations and that credible facts and sufficient evidence are required to discredit a witness's testimony. The Supreme Court's decision in Oguonze v State (1998) reinforces the integrity of the legal system and upholds