When it comes to the courtroom, one of the central conflicts that often arises is the battle between the relevance and admissibility of evidence. Relevance refers to whether the evidence presented has any bearing on the case at hand, while admissibility deals with whether the evidence meets the legal standards to be presented in court. It is crucial for legal professionals to understand the distinction between these two concepts to effectively navigate the complexities of a trial.

For evidence to be deemed relevant, it must have a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. In other words, the evidence must be connected to the issues in the case and must contribute to proving or disproving a fact in question. On the other hand, admissibility concerns whether the evidence meets the requirements set forth by the rules of evidence. This includes considerations such as whether the evidence was obtained legally, whether it is reliable, and whether its probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect.

Understanding the balance between relevance and admissibility is essential for both the prosecution and the defense in presenting a compelling case. While evidence may be relevant to the issues in the case, it may still be deemed inadmissible if it was obtained unlawfully or does not meet the standards set by the court. Legal professionals must carefully evaluate the evidence they wish to present, considering not only its relevance to the case but also its admissibility under the rules of evidence to construct a strong and persuasive argument in the courtroom.

When it comes to the legal system in Nigeria, one of the key battles that often takes place in courtrooms is the clash between the relevance and admissibility of evidence. The Nigerian legal system, like many others, has strict rules governing the types of evidence that can be presented in court and the criteria that must be met for that evidence to be considered admissible. Relevance refers to how pertinent or connected a piece of evidence is to the case at hand, while admissibility deals with whether the evidence meets the legal standards for being allowed into the court record.

In Nigerian law, evidence must not only be relevant to the case but also admissible under the rules of evidence. This means that even if a piece of evidence is deemed relevant to the case, it may still be excluded if it does not meet the legal criteria for admissibility. For example, hearsay evidence, which is an out-of-court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is generally considered inadmissible in Nigerian courts unless it falls within certain exceptions. This illustrates the importance of understanding the nuances of admissibility when presenting evidence in Nigerian courtrooms.

While relevance focuses on the connection of the evidence to the case, admissibility ensures that only reliable and probative evidence is considered during legal proceedings. Striking a balance between relevance and admissibility is crucial for ensuring a fair trial and upholding the principles of justice. Lawyers and judges play a pivotal role in navigating this balance, determining what evidence is both relevant and admissible in court. By understanding these concepts and the complexities surrounding them, legal professionals in Nigeria can effectively present their case and advocate for their clients within the boundaries of the law.

The rule is that while relevancy is based on ordinary reckoning or logical reasoning or logic, admissibility is based on law. Ultimately, for any piece of evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant but such evidence could be relevant without being admissible. This rule was explained in this course.

Authorities cited

OGUNBADEJO V OWOYEMI
SUBERU V SUMONU
NWABUOKU V STATE
MOHAMMED V STATE

CONTACT ME-
INSTAGRAM: Dieko_Daniels
LinkedIn: Diekolola Daniels

свернуть