A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ATTITUDE OF NIGERIAN COURTS TOWARDS IMPROPERLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS

Abstract

The increasing incidence of unlawful investigative practices, including torture, illegal searches, arbitrary detention, and other violations of constitutional rights, has raised serious concerns about the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence in Nigeria and its implications for the protection of fundamental human rights and the integrity of the criminal justice system. This study aims to critically analyze the attitude of Nigerian courts towards improperly obtained evidence and its impact on fundamental human rights. The study adopts a doctrinal and analytical research methodology through an examination of relevant constitutional provisions, the Evidence Act 2011, judicial authorities, and comparative materials from selected jurisdictions. The study finds that although the Nigerian legal framework provides safeguards against the admission of evidence obtained through rights violations, judicial attitudes have evolved from a rigid relevance-based approach to a more fairness-oriented approach that recognizes judicial discretion in excluding evidence obtained in circumstances that compromise the fairness of proceedings. However, the application of these principles remains inconsistent, with courts occasionally admitting evidence despite procedural irregularities, thereby weakening constitutional protections and encouraging investigative misconduct. The study concludes that a consistent rights-based approach to the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence is essential to safeguarding fundamental human rights and preserving public confidence in the administration of criminal justice. It recommends stricter judicial enforcement of constitutional safeguards, mandatory electronic recording of interrogations, enhanced training for judicial officers and law enforcement personnel, and stronger accountability mechanisms for rights violations.