Who Is A Tainted Witness?

The terms, tainted, witness’, does not appear in
the Evidence Act or any other Nigerian Act. A victim of an offence therefore, cannot be regarded as a tainted witness. It is even clear if it is an intermediate stage between an accomplice and a non-accomplice, but the term has been used by the Supreme Court in the famous 1963 “treasonable felony” trial that is the case of RV Micheal Adeglapo Onisade & Ors (1964) N .M.L.R 67. In that case A,B,C, and others conspired to commit treason. D was invited into the meeting of the conspirators which were for innocent purpose, but subsequently plans towards the conspiracy were discussed. D attended  such meetings for sometime and then withdrew. It swore not to say anything about it to the police and did not for almost a year. The justice of the Supreme Court held that he was not an accomplice whose evidence required corroboration. Dissenting on this point Mbanefo Ag J.S.C (Chief Justice of Eastern Nigeria) was of the view that he was an accomplice or at least a tainted witness…
In Ojo V. Gharo (2006) 2-3 Sc 105 at 124, the Supreme Court held that the expression “tainted witness” is not only nebulous but vague and lacking precise legal meaning. In civil matters atainted witness could be a biased witness, that is to say a witness who because of his prejudices and sentiments will invariably give evidence in favour of the party calling him with little or no regard for the truth. A tainted witness could also be said to be an interested witness.
And because of his interest the witness develops a one sided inclination towards the party who calls him to give evidence, no matter the obvious lies he tells in court. In determining whether a witness is an interested witness or a tainted witness, the court must examine the relationship of the witness to the party calling him. Per Tobi JSC.
A tainted witness’ may or may not be an accomplice but by giving evidence  either for the prosecution or the defence, maybe regarded as having his own purpose to serve. In Dickson Moses V. The State, the prosecuting witness’ (PW5) was in the vehicle when the accident occurred. He sustained serious injury as a result of the accident. His evidence was intended specifically to establish the guilt of the appellant and not to state how the accident occurred. The interest he was serving in giving the evidence was a way of seeking vengeance against the appellant. The witness was not to punish the appellant. To this end, the PW5 ought to have been found to be a tainted witness by the court. It is submitted that if the lower court had treated PW5 as a tainted witness’ whose evidence must be corroborated, the court would’ve found the prosecution’s case against the appellant not proved beyond reasonable doubt in view of the absence of any form of eye witness’ corroboration see Jimoh Ishola V. The state (1978) a & 10 s c 81 at 100.
A tainted witness’ is one whose evidence could be unsafe to act upon without corroboration.

Nkechi Bright-Ewere