Who Is A Competent Witness?

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a compe
tent witness is one who is legally qualified to be heard to testify in a case.
The general rule regarding competence of a witness is that everyone is capable of giving evidence in a case but there are exceptions as provided in section 175 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011, which states thus:
All persons shall be competent to testify; unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by reason of tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of the body or mind or any other cause of the same kind.”
Tender Years: S 183 (1) of the Evidence Act provides that “In any proceeding for any offence the evidence of any child who is tendered as a witness and does not in the opinion of the court understand the nature of an oath, maybe received though not given upon oath; if in the opinion of the court such child is possessed of sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of the evidence and understand the duty of speaking the truth. Note that in cases where a child under 14 years is offered as a witness  by the prosecution, it is not unusual for the judge to request to talk to the child in private before the child gives evidence, in order to assess the child’s ability and capacity to give an intelligible account of events. But children over 14years of age must still make the oath or affirmation in other to give evidence.
Extreme Old Age  And Disease Of The Body Or Mind: When a person is extremely old or is insane, it does not automatically render him/her an incompetent witness. The court tests whether the person affected with old age or insanity has sufficient knowledge to apprehend the obligation of an oath and whether he/she is capable to give a correct account of the matters which the person has seen or heard, then the person can be considered a competent witness. The person should also be capable to perceive and narrate.
It is worthy of note that a person’s testimony should not be excluded because the witness has a hearing problem. If the witness’s answers to the questions were responsive, the person’s evidence need not be excluded. Deaf and mute persons are also competent witness. If deaf and mute persons are capable to communicate the matter and are of sufficient mental capacity to observe the matters as to which they will testify and to appreciate the obligation of an oath, their evidence will have value. However trial courts can have interpreters for deaf and mute witness. Their evidence will be considered as direct evidence and not hearsay.
Also a witness cannot be considered incompetent because of intoxicative but if the person was virtually unconscious at the time of the event, the person can be considered incompetent. Sometimes two or more people maybe charged with a criminal offence and they are tried at the same time. In that situation, the rule is that one co-accused cannot be called by the prosecution to give evidence against another co-accused.
The common law  rule is that neither party to a marriage can be a witness in favour of or against the other, in a suit to which the other is a party or has a direct or immediate interest. But in a criminal proceeding in which one spouse is the defendant, the other is not a competent witness either for or against the defendant, however, if the case is brought by one spouse against the other spouse, spouses are competent to testify against each other.
The general presumption therefore is that a person is competent to be a witness when he/she is mature, of normal appearance and is capable of receiving and narrating impressions. Unless this supposed person falls within the exceptions mentioned earlier.

Nkechi Bright Ewere