Safeguarding Justice or Impeding Compliance? A Critical Analysis of Evidence Admissibility Under Nigeria's ACJA 2015 And Evidence Act
Fuente:
Zenodo
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866901808962600960 |
|---|---|
| author | Salami, Suleiman Laide |
| author_facet | Salami, Suleiman Laide |
| contents | <p>This paper critically examines the relationship between the procedural safeguards governing <br>evidence collection under Sections 15 and 17 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act <br>(ACJA) 2015 and the judicial discretion to admit improperly obtained evidence under Section <br>14 of the Evidence Act. The ACJA provisions constitute a deliberate legislative effort to <br>strengthen suspects’ fundamental rights by prescribing clear protocols for the taking of <br>confessional statements, including written documentation, electronic recording where feasible, <br>and the presence of legal counsel or other designated persons. These safeguards are intended <br>to promote transparency, ensure voluntariness, and prevent coercive investigative practices, <br>thereby reinforcing the right to a fair trial. In contrast, Section 14 of the Evidence Act presents <br>a jurisprudential challenge by empowering courts to admit evidence obtained unlawfully, <br>subject to a balancing test that weighs the desirability of admission against the undesirability <br>of the impropriety. While both statutory frameworks ostensibly pursue justice and due process, <br>this discretionary regime risks undermining the mandatory character and protective purpose of <br>the ACJA safeguards. The resulting tension reflects a broader conflict between strict procedural <br>compliance and the pragmatic pursuit of truth in criminal adjudication. Through a comparative <br>and doctrinal legal analysis, this paper evaluates the implications of this statutory interplay for <br>human rights protection, police accountability, and the credibility of judicial outcomes within <br>Nigeria’s criminal justice system. It concludes by advocating for a harmonized approach to <br>evidence admissibility that promotes legal certainty while preserving the rights-protective <br>objectives of the ACJA</p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_18093535 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | eng |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | Safeguarding Justice or Impeding Compliance? A Critical Analysis of Evidence Admissibility Under Nigeria's ACJA 2015 And Evidence Act Salami, Suleiman Laide Admissibility Evidence Criminal Justice Judicial Discretion Procedural safeguards <p>This paper critically examines the relationship between the procedural safeguards governing <br>evidence collection under Sections 15 and 17 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act <br>(ACJA) 2015 and the judicial discretion to admit improperly obtained evidence under Section <br>14 of the Evidence Act. The ACJA provisions constitute a deliberate legislative effort to <br>strengthen suspects’ fundamental rights by prescribing clear protocols for the taking of <br>confessional statements, including written documentation, electronic recording where feasible, <br>and the presence of legal counsel or other designated persons. These safeguards are intended <br>to promote transparency, ensure voluntariness, and prevent coercive investigative practices, <br>thereby reinforcing the right to a fair trial. In contrast, Section 14 of the Evidence Act presents <br>a jurisprudential challenge by empowering courts to admit evidence obtained unlawfully, <br>subject to a balancing test that weighs the desirability of admission against the undesirability <br>of the impropriety. While both statutory frameworks ostensibly pursue justice and due process, <br>this discretionary regime risks undermining the mandatory character and protective purpose of <br>the ACJA safeguards. The resulting tension reflects a broader conflict between strict procedural <br>compliance and the pragmatic pursuit of truth in criminal adjudication. Through a comparative <br>and doctrinal legal analysis, this paper evaluates the implications of this statutory interplay for <br>human rights protection, police accountability, and the credibility of judicial outcomes within <br>Nigeria’s criminal justice system. It concludes by advocating for a harmonized approach to <br>evidence admissibility that promotes legal certainty while preserving the rights-protective <br>objectives of the ACJA</p> |
| title | Safeguarding Justice or Impeding Compliance? A Critical Analysis of Evidence Admissibility Under Nigeria's ACJA 2015 And Evidence Act |
| topic | Admissibility Evidence Criminal Justice Judicial Discretion Procedural safeguards |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18093535 |