Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://dspace.iua.edu.sd/handle/123456789/5225
Title: أهلية الشهود في المحاكم الجنائية في قانون الاثبات النيجيري- دراسة مقارنة
Authors: محمد منتقى محبوب
Keywords: القانون
قانون الإثبات
Issue Date: 2019
Citation: جامعة إفريقيا العالمية - عمادة الدراسات العليا والنشر - كلية الشريعة والقانون
Abstract: Evidence is a means which a court rely on to give judgment. Without evidence there will never be a proof. The main function of the law of evidence is to regulate the process of proof. Oral evidence is among the different means of proof. Oral testimony is considered to be one of the most vital and reliable means of proving criminal allegation, by shari’a, Nigerian Evidence Act 2011 and Sudanese Evidence Act 1994, because, right from the time immemorial up to our present time, the most available means of proving criminal allegation was/is oral testimony. For that reason, each of the above mentioned evidence law take necessary measures to ensure the credibility of a witness as well as his evidence as presented to the court of law. But the measures taken by shari’a are more stringent than that taken by both Nigerian Evidence Act 2011 and Sudanese Evidence Act 1994. For instance, shari’a emphasizes on ADALA of a witness, among other means, while Nigerian Evidence Act 2011, uses cross examination and demeanor of a witness as a means to ensure the credibility of witness and his testimony. Whereas, Sudanese Evidence Act 1994, uses both ADALA and cross examination as a means of ascertaining the credibility of witness and his testimony. According to shari’a principle, for a witness to qualify as ADIL he must satisfy certain requirements, for instance, he must be muslim, male, adult, among others. Any witness who fails to satisfy those requirements cannot qualify to be competent witness; hence, his testimony will not be admissible. Maliki school of thought of law emphases and elaborates on the issue of ADALA more than any other school of thought. According to Nigerian law, it is only shari’a law of evidence that can be applied in any shari’a court in Nigeria. The same law provides further that, only Maliki mazhab should applied. But the law did not specify which opinion within the mazhab should apply, i.e. it is the popular opinion (MASH-HUR) or most authentic (RAJIH) or even the weak one (SHAZ), considering the divergent opinions of jurists within the school on almost each and every opinion. This legal vacuum resulted from the absence of codified Islamic law of evidence which will constrain the judge. The inhabitants of the Northern Nigeria are predominantly Muslims, but, there are other non-muslims in any part of Northern Nigeria. If an offence/crime is committed by a Muslim, he will be taken to shari’a court, a time, the only available witness that witnessed the commission of the crime, could either be, non- Muslim, or woman or child. In this a situation, a court will have no any other option rather than to discharge an accused person due to the lack of competent witness no matter the gravity of the crime.
URI: http://dspace.iua.edu.sd/handle/123456789/5225
Appears in Collections:أطروحات الدكتوراه

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Research.pdf3.79 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.