Introduction

The doctrine of hearsay evidence is a fundamental principle in the law of evidence that states that
evidence given by a witness about a statement made by another person, which is offered as
evidence of the truth of its contents, is inadmissible unless it falls within an exception or is
admissible under a relevant statute. Section 37 of the Evidence Act defines hearsay evidence as "a
statement, whether oral or in writing, made otherwise than by a person while giving oral evidence
in the proceedings before the court and tendered as evidence of the matters stated."The principle
that "hearsay evidence is ordinarily inadmissible in the law of evidence" is a fundamental rule of
evidence law. Hearsay is generally defined as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of
the matter asserted. The reasoning behind this principle is that hearsay statements are often
unreliable and lack credibility, since the person making the statement may have no personal
knowledge of the facts or may have a motive to lie.
The rationale behind this doctrine is to protect the integrity and reliability of evidence presented in
court by insisting that such evidence should come from firsthand knowledge. Hearsay evidence is
typically considered unreliable and untrustworthy, as it may be based on rumors, gossip, or
second-hand information. Exceptions to the hearsay rule have been recognized by courts and
statutes in various jurisdictions, which allow for hearsay evidence to be admissible in certain
circumstances, as long as it is trustworthy and reliable.Hearsay evidence is a statement made
outside of court, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The general rule is that hearsay
evidence is inadmissible in the law of evidence. The statement "hearsay evidence is ordinarily
inadmissible in the law of evidence" is a well-established principle of evidence law in Nigeria. This
principle holds that evidence given by a witness about a statement made by another person, which
is offered as evidence of the truth of its contents, is inadmissible unless it falls within an exception
or is admissible under a relevant statute.

The inadmissibility of hearsay evidence is a fundamental principle in the Nigerian law of evidence.
Hearsay evidence is typically considered unreliable and untrustworthy, as it may be based on
rumors, gossip, or second-hand information. The rule against hearsay evidence in Nigeria holds
that evidence given by a witness about a statement made by another person, which is offered as
evidence of the truth of its contents, is inadmissible unless it falls within an exception or is
admissible under a relevant statute.The Nigerian Constitution recognizes the importance of
admissible evidence in criminal proceedings, stating in Section 36(5) that "every person accused of
a criminal offence shall be entitled to a fair hearing in public within a reasonable time by a court or
tribunal." The admission of hearsay evidence may undermine this right to a fair hearing by
allowing unreliable evidence to be presented in court. The rationale behind the hearsay rule is to
protect the integrity and reliability of evidence presented in court by insisting that such evidence
should come from firsthand knowledge.
However, there are certain exceptions to the hearsay rule, which allow for hearsay evidence to be
admissible in certain circumstances. In this essay, I will critically assess the viability of the
statement that "hearsay evidence is ordinarily inadmissible in the law of evidence" by discussing
the various exceptions to the hearsay rule under Nigerian law, using relevant judicial and statutory
authorities
One of the most commonly cited exceptions to the hearsay rule is the res gestae exception. This
exception allows for statements made by a person while under the influence of a startling event to
be admissible as evidence if the statements were made spontaneously and contemporaneously with
the event. This exception allows for the admission of statements made by a person immediately
after a shocking event that is relevant to the case. This exception is based on the theory that these
statements are highly reliable, since they are made in the immediate aftermath of a shocking event
and are unlikely to be fabricated. The case of Ukeje v Ukeje (2014) LPELR-22333(SC) is a good
example of this exception in Nigerian law.
One of the statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule in Nigeria is the Criminal Procedure Act.
Section 37(1) of the Act allows for the admission of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings
where it relates to a statement made by a person who is dead, unavailable or cannot be found, or
whose attendance cannot be procured by any means. If a declarant believes that their death is
imminent, any statement made by them about the cause or circumstances of their death is
admissible as evidence. In such cases, the hearsay evidence is considered admissible if the court is
satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice.This exception allows for statements made by
a person who believes that they are about to die to be admissible as evidence. This exception is
based on the theory that persons who believe they are about to die are unlikely to lie, since they
have nothing to gain by doing so. Nigerian courts have recognized the "dying declaration"
exception to the hearsay rule. This exception allows statements made by a person on the verge of
death to be admissible as evidence, provided that such statements relate to the cause or
circumstances surrounding the death of the declarant.The Nigerian Evidence Act recognizes this
exception in sections 38 and 43. A similar exception is the declaration against interest exception,
which allows for statements made by a person against their own interest to be admissible as
evidence. Examples of such statements include confessions and admissions against interest.
There are several other exceptions to the hearsay rule, including statements made for medical
diagnosis, statements made by public officials in the performance of their duties, and prior
inconsistent statements made by a witness. Other exceptions to the hearsay rule include business
records exception, public documents exception, and official records exception. These exceptions
allow for certain types of documents and records to be admissible as evidence, even if they are
technically hearsay. The Nigerian Evidence Act recognizes these exceptions in sections 36, 102, and
103.
However, it is important to note that while these exceptions to the hearsay rule exist, courts must
still be cautious in assessing hearsay evidence. The courts must ensure that hearsay evidence is
reliable, trustworthy, and necessary in the interest of justice. The reliability of hearsay evidence will
depend on the circumstances of each case and the nature of the hearsay statements. Therefore,
courts must carefully consider the situation under which the hearsay statement was made, the
mental and emotional state of the declarant, and the person's relationship with the declarant.
In Nigeria, the Evidence Act provides for exceptions to the hearsay rule.
The first exception to the hearsay rule is contained in section 38 of the Evidence Act, which allows
for the admission of hearsay evidence if it falls under one of the other admissible categories of
evidence, such as admissions, confessions, or dying declarations. This means that if the hearsay
evidence falls under one of these categories, it may be admissible in court.
The second exception is contained in section 39 of the Evidence Act, which allows for the
admission of hearsay evidence if it is relevant to a matter in issue, and if the court is satisfied that
the circumstances of the statement provide sufficient guarantees of its accuracy. This means that if
the hearsay evidence is relevant to the case and the court is satisfied that it is reliable, it may be
admitted.
The third exception is contained in section 40 of the Evidence Act, which allows for the admission
of hearsay evidence if it relates to the existence or non-existence of a state of mind. This means that
if the hearsay evidence is about someone's mental state, such as their intention or belief, it may be
admissible.
The fourth exception is contained in section 41 of the Evidence Act, which allows for the admission
of hearsay evidence if it relates to a matter that is unlikely to be within the personal knowledge of
the witness. This means that if the subject matter of the evidence is something that the witness
would not normally be expected to know firsthand, such as the contents of a document or a
conversation between other people, it may be admissible.
The fifth exception is contained in section 42 of the Evidence Act, which allows for the admission
of hearsay evidence if it is necessary to the proof of a fact in issue and if the court is satisfied that
the evidence is reliable. This means that if the hearsay evidence is crucial to proving a fact in the
case and the court is satisfied that it is reliable, it may be admitted.
In conclusion, while the principle that "hearsay evidence is ordinarily inadmissible in the law of
evidence" is well-established, there are several exceptions to this rule under Nigerian law. These
exceptions recognize that hearsay evidence can sometimes be reliable and trustworthy, and provide
guidelines for when such evidence may be admissible. Nigerian courts and statutes have
acknowledged these exceptions and have provided guidelines for their application. Whether
hearsay evidence is admissible in any given case will depend on the specific circumstances.
Ultimately, the courts must weigh the relevance, probative value, reliability, and fairness of the
hearsay evidence before admitting it. It is important for legal practitioners to understand these
exceptions and be able to apply them appropriately in order to ensure that justice is served in every
case. Relevant judicial and statutory authorities that support the exceptions to hearsay evidence in
Nigeria include the Nigerian Evidence Act, 2011 and various case law authorities such as Ukeje v
Ukeje (2014) LPELR-22333(SC).