CHARACTER EVIDENCE

In plain English, Character refers to one's personality, traits, or

disposition; but, in the legal field, it has a more technical definition.
Section 77 of the Evidence Act provides: ‘in sections 78-87, the
expression ‘character’ means reputation as distinguished from
disposition, and except as mentioned in those sections, evidence
may be given only of general reputation and not of particular acts
by which reputation or disposition is shown.’
In essence, all it takes to be considered proof of good character is a
general statement of reference for generally decent behaviour. In
Haruna and Others V. Police 1967)NMLR 145, the evidence of a
bank manager that one of the appellants in the case was financially
sound and not known to have been involved in previous trouble was
held to be character evidence within the ambit of the Evidence Act.
This was notwithstanding the fact that the bank manager did not
include in his statement whether or not the appellant, accused of
abetting a robbery, was a customer in his bank.
Although not explicitly mentioned in the Act, the standing of the
individual in whose favour it is being adduced determines the scope
of the term "character." A witness's reputation, behaviour, and any
prior convictions, for instance, will all be considered aspects of his
character. This broad scope is permitted in order to test the
witness's credibility and damage his reputation. For example, if a
witness is testifying about the excellent character of an accused
person, it may be argued that he is not in the best position to testify
about the good character of another person because he has a shady
character himself. Where the party is the accused in a criminal trial
on the other hand, evidence admissible will depend on surrounding
circumstances.
The general rule regarding character evidence under the
Evidence Act is that the fact that an accused person is of bad
character or reputation or that he has committed other offences or
misconducts prior to the present one is not admissible as evidence
of guilt in the present charge. This rule is formed originally from
common law, but is codified in section 82 of the Evidence Act as
follows: ‘except as provided in this section, evidence of the fact that
a defendant is of bad character is inadmissible in criminal
proceedings…’
According to the reasoning behind this general rule, it would be
unfair to suggest that someone with a poor reputation is more likely
to conduct crimes. The "actus reus" and "mens rea," or the physical
and mental components, respectively, are the two legal issues that
are involved in the conduct of an offence. Declaring that there is a
degree of possibility based on the general reputation of an individual
who has committed an offence is insufficient; these two factors must
be proved.
There are exceptions to the general rule of non- admissibility of
character evidence which are contained in sections 82 (2)-(6). These
sections provide for the exceptional circumstances where the
character evidence of a person may be relevant and admissible.
Generally, this will depend on the status of the person; that is,
whether he is a party to the case or not and whether it is a civil suit
or a criminal case; and finally, whether it is evidence of good or bad
character that is sought to be adduced. In any of these
circumstances, there are three instances that character evidence
may be proved. They include where the evidence of character is a
fact in issue, where it is relevant to the fact in issue; and finally,
where it is relevant to the credibility of a party or witness.
Civil Cases
Section 78 of the Evidence Act provides:
‘ In Civil cases, evidence of the fact that the character of any person
concerned is such as to render probable or improbable any conduct
imputed to him is inadmissible except in so far as such character
appears from facts otherwise relevant.’
The exceptions to this general rule are seen in its second part which
states’ except in so far as such character appears from the facts
otherwise relevant….that is where the character of the person is a
fact in issue, relevant to a fact in issue or relevant to the credibility
of the person.
A party's character may be immediately significant and admissible
in some civil cases. This usually happens when a person's character
is one of the elements of an infraction or might be used as support
for an accusation made against them. Evidence of his character will
be required in these situations to establish his guilt or innocence for
the offence in question. One typical instance is in the context of
defamation. The character of the claimant is a key factor in
determining liability in a defamation suit where justification is
pleaded; as such, it becomes relevant and admissible in evidence.
In the early case of Scott V. Sampson (1882) 8 QBD 491, this
long established principle was made use of. In that case, evidence of
a plaintiff’s bad character was held to be in issue. It is thus relevant
and admissible where the defendant pleaded the defense of
justification in a case of defamation.
Proof of the claimant's reputation becomes important in order to
demonstrate the harm he sustained due to defamation. Since the
amount of damages recoverable depends on the estimation
(character-wise) in which the claimant was previously held, the
character of the claimant is likewise at risk if he prevails in his
defamation action. It is proof of the plaintiff's standing at the time
the claimed defamatory content was published in this case.
Evidence regarding the Claimant’s reputation at the time of the trial
may also be admissible if the defendant enters a justification plea
during the trial, but not if the defence is limited to denying any
defamatory meaning or fair comment without a justification plea.In
defamation cases, evidence of a claimant’s bad character is also
admissible to mitigate damages. Notice must be given to the court
before the evidence is admissible.
Sec 80 therefore provides: ‘in actions for libel and slander in which
the defendant does not by his defense assert the truth of the
statement complained of, the defendant is not entitled on the trial
to give evidence in chief with a view to mitigation of damages, as to
the circumstances under which the libel or slander was published ,
or as to the character of the claimant, without the leave of the
judge, unless seven days at least before the trial he furnishes
particulars to the plaintiff of the matters as to which he intends to
give evidence.’
Also in instances of breach of promise of marriage, evidence of bad
character may constitute a defense for the repudiation of the
promise by the defendant. The defendant can assert, for instance,
that the claimant is attempting to renounce the promise to marry
because of his immoral actions. If the defendant is liable for the
breach of promise, the claimant's character becomes a fact in issue
that needs to be proven. The claimant in such an action may provide
evidence of her good reputation if the defendant has contested the
claimant's character.
Where Evidence of Character Is Relevant To A Fact In Issue
Character evidence may be relevant and admissible in civil cases
where they are of similar facts and thereby relevant to the fact in
issue. In other words, evidence of the disposition of the defendant
towards wrongdoing or the commission of a certain type of civil
wrong may be admissible if it is of sufficient relevance or probative
force in relation to the facts in issue. The reason for receiving this
form of evidence may be to show the defendant’s propensity to act
in the accused manner or to mitigate the damages that the court
may award to the benefit of a party to the suit thereto. An instance
where character evidence may be relevant and admissible includes
divorce proceedings. Where a party has been alleged to commit
adultery, evidence of previous instances of adultery of the party
may be adduced in evidence as seen in Butterworth V. Butterworth
(1920) p126. Also, evidence of the seductive character of a woman
seduced may also be adduced in evidence. It should be noted that in
both cases above, the facts and circumstances must be stated in the
pleadings before character evidence is admissible. Apart from such
instances where such similar facts are to be proved, evidence of
character will not be admissible in civil suits. In A.G V. Bowman,
evidence of a witness to character called by the defendant was held
to be inadmissible because the proceedings were not criminal.
Any witness in a civil case, whether or not they are a party to the
proceedings, may also have their credibility as a witness questioned.
Any individual who provides testimony from the witness box may
have his character questioned, according to the basic rule of law. In
this context, character refers to one's whole reputation, disposition,
and past beliefs. There are some restrictions, though. The answers
provided to the suit on questions related to his credibility during his
appearance as a witness are final, and no evidence can be
presented to the contrary.
In this regard, Section 229 provides: ‘when a witness has been
asked and has answered any question which is relevant to the
inquiry only in so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his
character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him, but If he
answers falsely, he may afterwards be charged with an offence
under section 191 of the Criminal Code and on conviction shall be
dealt with accordingly…provided that …’
However where a witness has denied that he has had previous
convictions, evidence of such previous convictions may be adduced
and a witness who denies his impartiality may also be contradicted
by evidence of such partiality.
Criminal cases
In criminal cases, there is only one person whose character is
relevant during the proceedings- the accused. Though the character
of the prosecution or its witnesses may be challenged, it is not
directly relevant to the trial. There are different positions regarding
the relevance of character of the accused in criminal cases and this
is determined by what sort of evidence is to be adduced; evidence
of good character, or evidence of bad character.
Good Character
In criminal proceedings, the fact that an accused person is of good
character is relevant. Evidence of good character of an accused
person is generally relevant. Good character is not defined in the act
but evidence of previous conviction will not necessarily prevent an
accused from being treated as of previous good character especially
where the terms of conviction have been spent. Evidence of good
character may be adduced by the accused himself under
examination in chief or by other witnesses whether called by him or
the prosecution. The limits of the purpose good character evidence
may be used for are not prescribed by the Act. However it cannot
demolish a clearly established offence against an accused person. In
very doubtful cases, evidence of good character may influence the
minds of the judge or create a doubt in the case against the
accused. For evidence of good character to have any effect, it
should be relevant to the charge. In essence if the charge against
the accused borders on his dishonesty then only evidence to his
honest character will be relevant and admissible. Though evidence
of general good disposition may be admissible in evidence, it is
doubtful if evidence relating to the good character of the accused
towards his family will suffice when he is charged with the offence of
embezzling public funds for example. Evidence of good character
should be related to the accused’s reputation at a time fairly close
to the date of the offence charged because it may affect the
credibility of the evidence that the accused may give as a witness.
The flip side of the admissibility of good character evidence is that it
entitles the prosecution to adduce evidence of the accused’s bad
character. Any evidence given by the prosecution to rebut the
evidence of good character that has been admitted as relevant by
the accused is admissible.
Bad Character
Section 82(1) of the Evidence Act provides:’ except as provided in
this section, evidence of the fact that a defendant is of bad
character is inadmissible in criminal proceedings’
(2) The fact that a defendant is of bad character is admissible
a. when the bad character of the defendant is a fact in issue or’
b. when the defendant has given evidence of his good character
(3) A defendant may be asked questions to show that he is of bad
character in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph © of the
provision to section 180
From the above, it is obvious that as a general rule, the bad
character of an accused is irrelevant to present criminal
proceedings. This general rule is subject to the exceptions contained
in the provisions of section 82 (2) (a), (b) and (3). It is important to
note that under the exceptions to the general rule, where evidence
of bad character of the accused becomes admissible, it includes
adducing evidence of previous convictions. There are specified
methods of proving previous convictions contained in section 248-
250 of the Evidence Act.

Section 82 (2) (a)

By virtue of section 82 (2) (a), the bad character of an accused may
be in issue in instances where the bad character forms part of the
ingredients of the offence he is charged with. Under the Criminal
Code for instance, section 250 (1) provides that a person charged
with the offence of being a rogue and vagabond must be proved to
have been convicted of being an idle and disorderly person under
section 249 of the code. In essence, the idle and disorderly nature or
disposition of a person accuse of being a rogue and vagabond must
be proved before he can be found guilty of the offence of being a
rogue and a vagabond. Another instance where evidence of bad
character is in issue is for the purpose of proving that an accused
had guilty knowledge of receiving stolen property under section 427
of the Criminal Code. Evidence that within five years preceding the
date of the charge, the accused was convicted of any offence
involving any fraud or dishonesty may be proved in accordance with
the provisions of section 47 of the Act.
Section 82 (2) (b)
By virtue of section 82 (2) (b), the bad character of an accused
becomes admissible in evidence where the evidence of his good
character has been received by the court. For evidence of bad
character to be admissible in this instance, there should be rebuttal
of the good character evidence of the accused given earlier and not
evidence of bad character of the accused to show that he is guilty of
the offence charged with. In other words, the evidence of bad
character admissible under this subsection is that which rebuts the
evidence of good character adduced by the accused. For example,
where an accused is charged with the offence of embezzlement of
public funds and the court has admitted evidence of his good
character in carrying out his official duties, evidence by the
prosecution to show that he had earlier on in his lifetime been
convicted of misappropriating office funds will not be admissible
under the provisions of this subsection.