DEFECTIVE WITNESS STATEMENTS ON OATH IN NIGERIA: THE SUPREME COURT’S SHIFT FROM TECHNICALITY TO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE — A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF KATAGUM v. UMAR (2026) 8 NWLR (Pt. 2046) 457
By
Chidi Ezenwafor MCArb, FIMC, CMS(Dist.)
Candidate for NBA General Secretary 2026-2028
For years, Nigerian courts took a strict approach to witness statements on oath. Where a witness signed a deposition before a legal practitioner instead of a Commissioner for Oaths or another authorized person, the statement was often declared incompetent, regardless of the strength of the evidence or the justice of the case.
That position was firmly established by the Supreme Court in Nammagi v. Akote (2021) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1762) 170. The Court held that a witness statement sworn before an unauthorized person was fundamentally defective and could not support the witness’s evidence.
As a result, procedural objections became a common litigation strategy, with cases sometimes turning on technical defects rather than their actual merits.
The legal landscape has now changed with the Supreme Court’s decision in Katagum v. Umar (2026) 8 NWLR (Pt. 2046) 457.
The Court held that even where a witness statement was not sworn at all, or was defectively sworn, the defect is no longer fatal once the witness appears in court, takes the prescribed oath, adopts the statement as evidence-in-chief, and is cross-examined.
Relying on section 4 of the Oaths Act, the Supreme Court treated such defects as procedural irregularities that do not invalidate proceedings unless they have caused a miscarriage of justice.
This represents a significant shift in judicial thinking.
Rather than focusing on how the witness statement was prepared before trial, the Court focused on what truly matters: whether the witness eventually gave evidence under oath before the court and was subjected to cross-examination.
This reasoning is consistent with the Evidence Act, which requires that evidence be given on oath in court. A witness statement filed alongside pleadings is not evidence simply because it has been filed. It only becomes evidence when the witness adopts it in court.
Although the Supreme Court did not expressly overrule Nammagi v. Akote, the reasoning in Katagum v. Umar is difficult to reconcile with the earlier decision.
In Nammagi, a defect in the administration of the oath rendered the deposition incompetent.
In Katagum, the Court held that even the complete absence of an oath before the deposition was prepared does not invalidate the evidence once the witness is properly sworn in court and adopts the statement.
For practical purposes, Katagum substantially weakens the precedential force of Nammagi and establishes a stronger judicial preference for substantial justice over procedural technicality.
The decision also has important practical implications.
Counsel are now less likely to succeed with objections based solely on where or before whom a witness signed a deposition. The emphasis is expected to shift back to the credibility of the witness and the weight of the evidence rather than procedural traps.
That does not mean the requirements of the Oaths Act can be ignored.
Legal practitioners remain under a duty to ensure witness statements are properly sworn before authorized officers. The decision does not encourage procedural indiscipline or validate unlawful methods of administering oaths.
Indeed, some humorous reactions have suggested that witness statements can now be sworn before virtually anyone. That, however, is not what the Supreme Court decided.
The Supreme Court did not approve irregular methods of administering oaths. It simply held that where the witness later takes the lawful judicial oath in open court, adopts the statement, and is cross-examined, an earlier defect alone will not invalidate the proceedings unless it caused a miscarriage of justice.
Ultimately, Katagum v. Umar is a significant milestone in Nigerian civil procedure. It restores the focus of litigation to the search for truth through sworn testimony tested by cross-examination, rather than technical objections that have little bearing on the merits of the dispute.
While future decisions may eventually determine the fate of Nammagi v. Akote, Katagum v. Umar is currently the clearest indication that the Supreme Court is committed to ensuring that justice is guided by substance rather than form, fairness rather than technicality, and the constitutional imperative that courts exist to do justice according to law.