Is a
convicted murderer under
sentence of death a competent
Case stated witness
?-Section 1 of Forfeiture
Act 1870 declares such a ~ ~gh
person is no longer "
attainted".
U •
Held: To be a
competent witness. Case referred
to:-
R. v.
Webb, 11 Cox 133 (1867).
C. W.
Reece for Crown.
E. J.
Alex-Taylor (A. Alakija and
Egbuna with him) for
first
Appellant.
E. A.
Ali,erele for second and
fourth Appellants. L. Odunsi
for third Appellant.
Sir
William Geary holds watching
brief for first Appellant. The
following joint opinion was
delivered:-
KINGDON, C.J.,
NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD
COAS1', GRAHAM PAUL, C.J.,
SIERRA LEONE.
The Court is
asked the following question:-
Whether
Buraimoh Biu was, in the
circumstances set out in the
case stated 'a competent witness
at the ttial, and if -he was not
what should be done in the
premises.
The material
circumstances set out are that
Buraimoh Biu was a convicted
murderer under sentence of
death.
It is clear
that at Common Law Buraimoh Biu
would not have been a competent
witness.
In 1843 the
Evidence Act (6 & 7 Viet. C. 85)
was enacted, but this still left
in some doubt the question of
whether or not a murderer under
sentence of death was a
competent witness or not. In
1867 in the case of Reg. v
Webb Lush J. held that, in
spite of the 1843 Act, such a
person was not a competent
witness, I and if there had been
no further alteration of the law
We might feel rompelled to
follow that case. In 1870,
however, the Forfeiture Act (33
& 34 Viet. C. 23) was passed
which in our view places the
question beyond all doubt and
makes the present law perfectly
clear that a person under
sentence of death is a competent
witness.
J
