INTRODUCTION

The business of the court is to try the case and not the man, and a very bad man
may have a very righteous cause. Character evidence is a very tricky issue in the
law of evidence. On one hand, a court is supposed to apply the law impartially to
the facts on record and arrive at a decision. On the other hand, evidence as to the
general character and conduct of the accused is often important in explaining the
conduct of the accused and also in deciding the outcome of a case when the case
could go either way on the evidence alone.

Over the course of time, some general principles have evolved with respect to the
admissibility and evidentiary value of character evidence. The most important of
these principles is that character evidence is weak evidence and cannot stand up
to positive evidence as to the commission of a crime. Beyond that, the question of
admissibility of character evidence is still murky and is characterized by some
broad general principles with many contextualized exceptions. Generally
speaking, the good character of the accused is relevant and admissible as
evidence and can be used to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused when,
on the evidence alone, the case could go either way. However, evidence as to the
bad character of the accused is generally not admissible as evidence except when
it is in rebuttal to evidence of good character or when the character of the
accused is itself a fact in issue. In rape cases, the situation is reversed and the
question becomes about the victim/prosecutrix and the relevancy and
admissibility of evidence of her bad or immoral character.

Does it refer to the good reputation which a man may bear in his own circle, or
does it refer to The man’s real disposition as distinct from what his friends and
neighbour may think of him? Against the background of the above statement, it
will be appropriate at this stage to consider the Meaning of “character” within the
provisions of the Act.
THE DEFINITION OF CHARACTER
In the ordinary language, “character” means general reputation as distinct from
disposition which refers To tendency to act, think or feel in a particular way. 1 A
person who has the tendency to act in a good Way on certain occasions may be
reputed to be a person of bad character.
There had been a controversy in England on whether the word “character” as
used in section 1 (1) of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 includes disposition or
specific instances of good or bad behaviour. In Jones v. D.P.P., 2 Lord Denning took
Lord Hewart’s view that it is too late to argue that ‘character’ as used in the Act
means reputation’ and nothing else, but Lord Devlin expressed the opinion that
that was the meaning intended by the draftsman of the statute. It is however now
settled since the decision of the House of Lords in Selvey v. D.P.P. 3 that ‘character’
when used in the English Criminal Evidence Act of 1898 means both reputation
and disposition.4 See generally sections 67-72 and section 160 (1)(d) Evidence Act,
Cap 62 Laws of Federation of Nigeria, 1990 ( Hereinafter called “the Act”) [1944]
A.C. 315 at 324, [1944] 2 All E.R. 13 at 17 The Nigerian Evidence Act however
makes a distinction between reputation and disposition. This Definition and
principle are underlined in section 72, which provides that: In section 67-71 the
word “character” means reputation as distinguished from disposition, and Except
as previously mentioned in those sections, evidence may be given only of general
Reputation and not of particular acts by which reputation and disposition is
shown.
There would have been fundamental divergences between our law and the
English law and of course The relevance of English cases on this subject in Nigeria
if not for the above underlined words in section 72. There are specific provisions
in our Evidence Act, which permit evidence of disposition or particular Acts to be
given even when they do not technically amount to evidence of character. 5
Therefore Evidence of both reputation and disposition can be adduced wherever
they are declared to be relevant Under the Act.

1
See Cross & Willink, Outline of the Law of Evidence, 5 th ed. 1980 p. 248.
2
[1962] A.C. 435 at 671, [1962] I All E.R. 569 at 580.
3
[1970] AC 304, [1968] 2 All ER 497
4
R. Cross & C. Tapper, op. Cit p. 365
5
See sections 67-72
On the contrary, evidence of bad character under the Act is given a wider
definition to include previous Conviction. Section 68(4) of the Evidence Act
provides that “whenever evidence of bad character is Relevant evidence of a
previous conviction is also relevant.6
When a witness is asked about the character of a party with regard to certain
matters, it must be made Plain to him that he is being asked what he knows about
that person’s reputation and not his opinion Concerning his character. 7 In R v
Rowton,8 Rowton was charged with an indecent assault upon a man. He called a
witness to speak about his good moral character. In reply to a question
concerning Rowton’s Character for decency and morality of conduct, the witness
said:
I know nothing of the neighbourhood’s opinion because I was only a boy at school
when I knew Him, but my own opinion and that of my brothers who were also
pupils of his, is that his Character is that of a man capable of the grossest
Indecency and the most flagrant immorality. Rowton was convicted, but his
conviction was quashed on appeal on the ground that the witness was Not
competent to speak on the character of the accused person.

CRIMINAL TRIALS
If the prosecution could prove that an accused is of a bad character, one could
argue that such evidence Would be useful in determining whether that accused
actually committed the offence9 based on the Popular belief that someone who
has a bad character is a person likely to commit offences. 10 This argument is
common enough in everyday life, but it is dangerous in a court of law and might
Operate unfairly against the accused person. The adage “give a dog a bad name
and hang him” is a Timely reminder of this danger.11 Hence the ruIe of character
evidence was evolved as an exclusionary Rule to guard against an ever-ready
acceptance of the argument that the accused must have committed The crime
6
See section 68(4)
7
Cross & Wilkins, op. Cit. P. 267
8
(1865), Le & Ca. 520
9
J.C. Klotter, Criminal Evidence, 5th ed. P. 140
10
A.T. Aguda, op. Cit. P. 119

11
Cross & Wilkins op. Cit. P 249
because he is the kind of man who would commit the crime. 12 We shall now turn
to consider in details the rules governing the admissibility or otherwise of the
Evidence of good and bad character of parties in a criminal trial, in seriatim.

GOOD CHARACTER
(ANALYSIS OF NOKES STATEMENT)
The accused has been permitted to adduce evidence of his good character from
very early times.13 Following the common law position, section 68 of the Evidence
Act provides that “in criminal proceedings, the fact that the person accused is of a
good character is relevant." The Act however does not indicate the probative
value of such evidence. It suffices to say that the evidence of good character
cannot demolish a clearly established offence against an accused person.
However, in very doubtful cases, evidence of good character may so operate on
the minds of a judge as to create a doubt in the case against the accused. 14 Nokes
captured limited value of evidence of good character in a criminal case thus:
"If an alarm of theft is raised at a charity bazaar, and the thief slips a stolen purse
into the pocket of a bishop, the episcopal character may allay suspicion, but if a
bishop should be caught in the act of "shoplifting" the episcopal character would
merely appear to be unmerited”15
Although section 6816 simply states that evidence of good character is relevant, it
is advisable to restrict such evidence to those aspects relevant to the nature of
the charge.17 Thus in R v Turner18 where an accused was charged with treason. It
was held that evidence of his good character should not be general, but limited to
his character for loyalty and being peaceable. In R v Williamson 19 Lord
Ellenborough C.J. permitted a male mid-wife charged with manslaughter to
adduce evidence of his kind and skillful attention to other women. According to

12
Ibid
13
See R v Tumer (1664) State Tr 565 at 613, R v Harris (1680) 7 St Tr 926 at 929
14
A.T. Aguda, op. Cit. 107
15
Nokes, An Introduction to Evidence, 3rd ed. P. 127.
16
See section 67
17
Cross, op. Cit. P. 301
18
(1817) 32 State Tr 957 at 1007
19
(1807) B.C & P 635
Aguda, it is doubtful if a good reputation for honesty will be held relevant in a
charge for assault. If the offence is one of fraud then it is more useful to ask the
question, "what is the accused's character for honesty" and if the offence is one
for rape or related offences, the question should be: "what is the accused's moral
character?20
Evidence of good character is a double-edged weapon, for as it will soon become
evident, when it is given, the prosecution is entitled to adduce evidence of bad
character of the accused, if any.21

WHERE THE ACCUSED OR HIS COUNSEL HAS CROSS-EXAMINED THE

PROSECUTION WITNESS WITH A VIEW TO ESTABLISH HIS OWN GOOD
CHARACTER
Here, the situation is brought into existence by the accused himself or his counsel.
It must be clear from The nature of the questions put to the prosecution’s
witnesses that the accused aimed at establishing his Good character. Therefore,
where the prosecution during cross-examination elicits the evidence of good
Character of the accused from him, his character is not thereby put in, issue and
no rebuttal by the Prosecution will be permitted. Therefore the cross-examination
of an accused should not be conducted in such a way to incite him to Make
imputation on the prosecution’s witness. The position is the same if the evidence
of good Character is inadvertently given. The accused person in Popoola v
Commissioner of Police22 was Charged with burglary, stealing and unlawful
wounding. At his trial, the complainant who gave evidence, Said in answer to
questions put to him by counsel for the accused;
“Yes, I knew accused’s house; knew there are 22 rooms in the house. It is a very
large house. Yes, He is richer than me. I am not surprised that the accused in spite
of having a 22 – room’s house Should come to steal from me, if stealing is his
profession”.
It was held that the accused could not be said to have put his character in issue as
a result of these Questions and answers.
20
A.T. Aguda, op. Cit. P. 121
21
F. Nwadialo, op. Cit.p. 76
22
(1964) NMLR. 21
WHERE THE ACCUSED HAS GIVEN EVIDENCE OF HIS GOOD CHARACTER
This situation is also brought into existence by the accused himself. He must
either have testified by Himself as to his good character or call an independent
character witnesses to that effect. In Haruna &Ors V Police23 one of the Appellants
at his trial for the offence of abetting robbery called a manager of a bank As his
witness. The manager did not say in his evidence whether or not the Appellant
was a customer of His bank but stated as follows:
“I know the accused financial background. He is financially sound. Since I have
known the Accused I don’t remember him getting involved in any trouble”.
It was held that the statement amounted to character evidence. Another case of
where an accused put His character in issue is the case of R v Samuel. 24
Samuel was charged with stealing a camera that was found in his possession
some weeks after the Alleged theft. When he was caught, he stated that he
intended to return it. At his trial, he also gave Evidence to the effect that on two
earlier occasions, he had found properties belonging to other persons And
returned them to their owners. By so doing he was asserting himself as an honest
man.

CONCLUSION
Following analysis above, it can be seen that the exclusionary rule of character
evidence under the Evidence Act is generally structured to admit character
evidence only when they are relevant to the Issue before the court. This is
necessary to prevent the introduction of side issues to a trial, which can Unduly
predispose the court either in favour or against a party to a suit. However, in

23
(1969) NMLR 145
24
(1956) 40 C.A.R. 8
certain circumstances, character evidence are allowed to impeach the credibility
of a party Who has given evidence of his good character or impute the bad
character of the other party and or his Witnesses.

REFERENCES
Cases and Materials on Nigerian Law of Evidence
Cross & Willink, Outline of the Law of Evidence, 5th ed. 1980 p. 248.
J.C. Klotter, Criminal Evidence, 5th ed. P. 140
Nigerian Evidence Act 2011
Nokes, An Introduction to Evidence, 3rd ed. P. 127.