“The appellant founded his position on Section 209 of the Evidence Act which he contended was not complied with. The Section 209(1) provides thus:- “In any proceeding in which a child who has not attained the age of 14 years is tendered as a witness such child shall not be sworn and shall give evidence otherwise than on oath or affirmation, if in the opinion of the Court, he is possessed of sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of his evidence and understands the duty of speaking the truth.” In this instance, PW3 and PW4 were put on oath that is, they were sworn before they testified. Indeed, interpreting the provisions of the statute which are words that are clear, plain, and unambiguous, the Court has no option than to interpret them in those simple terms which translates to the fact that the provisions of Section 209, Evidence Act has to do with the unsworn testimony of a child and not for our present purposes where the learned trial judge had the testimonies of PW3 and PW4 who are minors on oath. The procedure adopted by the Court of trial is within the purview of only a trial Court which has the exclusivity of seeing the witnesses first hand and in a position as no other Court especially the appellate of taking the route of passage in the method adopted. See Saraki v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 836) 395, (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) 531 at 555 – 556, (2016) LPELR 852/2015.” Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. in ISMAILA KIWO v. THE STATE (2020- LCER-39167-SC) at p. 22 – p. 23

Add to LawKit (0)