HOLISTIC APPRAISAL OF THE PRINCIPLES OF COMPETENCE AND COMPELLABILITY OF A WITNESS IN CRIMINAL TRIAL

HOLISTIC APPRAISAL OF THE PRINCIPLES OF COMPETENCE AND COMPELLABILITY OF A WITNESS IN CRIMINAL TRIAL

  • The Complete Research Material is averagely 102 pages long and it is in Ms Word Format, it has 1-5 Chapters.
  • Major Attributes are Abstract, All Chapters, Figures, Appendix, References.
  • Study Level: BTech, BSc, BEng, BA, HND, ND or NCE.
  • Full Access Fee: ₦5,000

Get the complete project » Instant Download Active

ABSTRACT

This long essay research focuses on “holistic appraisal of the principles of competence and compellability of a witness in criminal trial”. The essence of this project is to examine the principles of competency and compellability of a witness in relation with criminal trial and even civil in a narrow context since the two’s are partners in administration of justice. The general rule is that every person charged with offence is innocent until proved guilty by a competence court of law. Therefore in conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, the evidence of a witness(es) is vital and indispensable. This rule is contained in section 175 of the evidence Act of 2011, the effect is that all persons are competent both in criminal and civil cases to testify, unless the court considers that they are prevented form understanding the questions put to them, or not able to give the rational answers to those questions, by reason of tenders years, extreme old age, diseases, whether of this body or mind or any other cause of the same kind. Another fundamental basic principles is that everybody is competent to testify but not compellable, because compellability deal on issues as to whether a witness obligated to give evidence at proceeding or not. In doing this, I relied on primary and secondary sources to obtain the materials for research, mostly, analytical methods/ library based.  I also make use of textbook, Journal, statutes, articles written by learned authors and other relevant materials related to the topics. Persons calling a witness should show on a balance of probabilities that the conditions sec. 175(2) EA are satisfied and hence competence. Children and mentally handicapped are presumed competent. The only test is provided in sec 175 Act (2). Finally recommendation will be made in order to proffer solution that will lead to amendment of the law.  


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page        -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           i

Certification    -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           ii

Declaration      -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           iii

Dedication      -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           iv

Acknowledgments      -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           v

Abstract          -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           vi

Table of Contents       -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           vii

Table of Cases             -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           ix

Lists of Statutes          -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           xvi

Lists of Abbreviations                        -           -           -           -           -           -           xviii

Foreign Law Reports  -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           xx

Miscellaneous  -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           xxi

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1              Background of the Study       -           -           -           -           -           -           1

1.2              Statement of the Problem       -           -           -           -           -           -           6

1.3              Aims and Objectives of the Study     -           -           -           -           -           7

1.4              Research Questions     -           -           -           -           -           -           -           7

1.5              Research Methodology           -           -           -           -           -           -           8

1.6              Significance of the Study       -          -           -           -           -           -           8

1.7              Scope and Limitation of the Study    -           -           -           -           -           9

1.8              Synopsis of Chapters -           -           -           -           -           -           -           10

1.9              Definitions of Terms/Conceptualizations of Terms    -           -           -           11

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW               -           -           -           -           -           -           20

CHAPTER THREE

THE GENERAL RULE ON THE COMPETENCE AND                                       COMPELLABILITY OF A WITNESS

3.1       Competency    -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           27

3.2       Tender Years (Children)         -           -           -           -           -           -           30

3.3.   Person Suffering from Disease whether of the body or mind or                                              other Affiliation of the same kind -           -           -           -           -           41

3.4   Dumb Witness as a Competent and Compellable Witness         -           -           43

CHAPTER FOUR

COMPETENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDING                                     /COMPELLABILITY OF A WITNESS

4.1       General Rule of Competence in Criminal Trial           -           -           -           45

4.2       Accused Persons and Co-Accused as Witness for Prosecution         -           47

4.3       Spouse of the Accused person and co-accused as witness for the                        prosecution          -           -            -           -           -           -           -           -           52

4.4       An Accomplice           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           54

4.5       Accused person and co-accused as witness for the Defence             -           -           56

4.6       Spouse of Accused person and co-accused as witness for the Defence        57

4.7       Competence and Compellability in Electoral Matters Competent     -           58

4.8       Compellability of a Witness    -           -           -           -           -           -           61

4.8.1   President, Vice President, Governor and Deputy Governor   -           -           64

4.8.2      Diplomats      -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           66

4.8.3        Bank and Other Financial Institutions        -           -           -           -           68

4.8.4       Judges and Legal Practitioners        -           -           -           -           -           73

4.8.5       Privileged Communication -           -           -           -           -           -           75

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

5.1       Summary         -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           81

5.2       Recommendations      -           -           -           -           -           -           -           82

5.3       Conclusion      -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           87

            BIBLIOGRAPHY


TABLE OF CASES

NIGERIA:

ABACHA & TRE vs. FAWEHINMI (2004) 4 SCNJ 400 – 460

ABDULLAH MOHAMMED vs. THE STATE (2013) LPELR 19822 (SC)

ABISI vs. EKWEALOR (1993) 6 NWLR (PT302) 643

ABLIBAKER MOHAMMED vs. THE STATE (2013) LPELR – 20840

ADEBAYO OJO vs. THE STATE (2012) LPELR – 9840 CA

ADELUMOLA vs. THE STATE (1988) INWLR (PT73) 683, (1988) 35CNJ PT P.58, 74-75

AGBAKOBA vs. INEC (2008)18 NWLR (PT1119) 489

AGENU vs. STAFF (1992) 7 NWLR (PT256) 749

AJANI vs. R. (1930) 3 WACA P.3

ALAMEY ESEGHA vs. TEIWA (2002) FWLR (PT 714) 192(CA)

ALHAJI MOHAMMED vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2013) LPELR 20082 (SC)

ALHAJI. GANJU vs. MOMODU SABA (2002) LPELR – 20013 (CA)

AUPAN vs. THE STATE (2001)6 NWLR (PT737) 745

BALA A. vs. IWEC & OR (2013) LPELR 20727 (CA)

CHIEF AMEKE vs. HONTONY & ORS (2013) LPELR 20349 (CA)

CHIEF REX KOLA vs. ENGR, RAPHAE (J. (2013) LPELR 20344 (SC)

COKER vs. SONYALU (1976) 9 – 10SC P.203

CONGRESS FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE & ORS vs. HON EMMANUEL

CONOIL PLE vs. VITOL S.A (2011) LPELR 19951 (CA)

DAVID & ORS (2013) LPELR – 26007 (SC)

DOMA vs. OGIRI (1998)3 NWLR (PT541) 246 – 267

EDWIN EZE 1930 vs. STATE (2012)6 NLR P.12

EMMANUEL EGUWMI vs. THE STATE (2013) LPELR 20091 (SC)

EMMANUEL MOLE & OR vs. L.GP (1957) NRNLR


You either get what you want or your money back. T&C Apply







You can find more project topics easily, just search

Quick Project Topic Search