The noble art of cross-examination constitute a lethal legal weapon in the hands of the adversary to enable him effect the demolition of the case of the opposing party. It is therefore good practice for counsel not only to put across his client's case through cross-examination, he should, as a matter of the utmost necessity, use the same opportunity to negative the credit of that witness whose evidence is under fire. It is unsatisfactory if not suicidal hard practice for counsel to neglect to cross examine a witness after his evidence in chief in order to contradict or impeach his credit while being cross-examined but attempt at doing so only by calling other witness or witnesses thereafter. That is demonstrably wrong, and will not even feebly dent that unchallenged evidence through other witnesses to controvert the unchallenged evidence
Al-Akim Investment Nigeria Limited v. F.R.N. & ANOR LGC(2/3/2018) D
This Court in Adeyemi V. State (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1239)1 Per Baje, JCA that:-
It is an established principle of law that where an adversary or a witness called by him testified on a material fact in controversy in a case, the other party should if he does not accept the witness testimony as true, cross-examine on that fact or at least show that he does not accept the evidence as true. Where, as in this case, he fails to do either, a Court can take his silence as an acceptance that the party does not dispute the fact afterall, one of the purpose of cross-examination is to test the veracity of a witness.
Al-Akim Investment Nigeria Limited v. F.R.N. & ANOR LGC(2/3/2018) D
This Court in Adeyemi V. State (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1239)1 Per Baje, JCA that:-
It is an established principle of law that where an adversary or a witness called by him testified on a material fact in controversy in a case, the other party should if he does not accept the witness testimony as true, cross-examine on that fact or at least show that he does not accept the evidence as true. Where, as in this case, he fails to do either, a Court can take his silence as an acceptance that the party does not dispute the fact afterall, one of the purpose of cross-examination is to test the veracity of a witness.
Al-Akim Investment Nigeria Limited v. F.R.N. & ANOR LGC(2/3/2018) D
This Court in Adeyemi V. State (2011) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1239)1 Per Baje, JCA that:-
It is an established principle of law that where an adversary or a witness called by him testified on a material fact in controversy in a case, the other party should if he does not accept the witness testimony as true, cross-examine on that fact or at least show that he does not accept the evidence as true. Where, as in this case, he fails to do either, a Court can take his silence as an acceptance that the party does not dispute the fact afterall, one of the purpose of cross-examination is to test the veracity of a witness.
Al-Akim Investment Nigeria Limited v. F.R.N. & ANOR LGC(2/3/2018) D
The evidence given against the Appellant was never challenged or controverted during cross-examination, appellant did not ask one single question to challenge or controvert the evidence that he participated in the crime or that he voluntarily made a confession, having not led any cogent and compelling evidence in his defence, the law is trite that the Court is entitled to belief and rely on such evidence in coming to its verdict. State V. Oray (2020) 7 NWLR (Pt 1722) 130, Igwe V.
People of Lagos State, just like my noble brother Habeeb Adewale Abiru JCA wondered in the unreported sister case of Olowodagba Tosin V. The State, Appeal No. CA/AK/406C/2019, Akure Division delivered on 20th June, 2022 to which I fully concurred, my Lord observed thus: “All the queries raised by Counsel to the Appellant in his brief of argument against the evidence of the first prosecution witness were present and available to Counsel at the time of cross-examining the witness, but not one of the queries was asked the witness.
Counsel obviously forgot that the proper state for discrediting the case of the Respondent and the prosecution witness is not in the address of Counsel or the brief of argument on appeal but is down the line at the trial Court during cross-examination and possibly a countering evidence to debunk whatever prosecution witness had placed in evidence but certainly not on appeal as counsel sought to do. Balogun V. A. G. Ogun State (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 512, Okoro V. State (2012) 1 SC.” In criminal trials, the defence must challenge all the evidence it wishes to dispute by cross-examination.
Where the evidence of a witness is not seriously challenged while he is in the witness box, it is an exercise in futility to seek to negative the testimony at the close of the case or to seek to demolish it on appeal, per Supreme Court in Igwe V. People of Lagos State (supra) pages 451-452. Exhibit 9 is the confessional statement of the Appellant like I observed earlier it was admitted without any objection and the Appellant Counsel did not cross-examine the PW1 through whom the Exhibit 9 was tendered.
Meaning that the appellant has accepted the truth of the evidence of the witness on the fact that the confessional statement was indeed made voluntarily by the appellant. See Esene V. State (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1568) 337, Isah V. State (2018) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1621) 346, Egba V. State (2019) 15 NWLR (1695) 201. PER BASIR, J.C.A.
On failure to cross-examine a witness on a material point, the Supreme Court in OLA V. STATE (2018) LPELR-44983 (SC) held that: “Where the adversary fails to cross-examine a witness upon a particular matter, the implication is that he accepts the truth of the matter as led in evidence.” The Supreme Court also, in YUSUF & ANOR V. STATE (2019) LPELR-46945 (SC) held thus: “The evidence of a witness which is not challenged or shaken by cross-examination, which evidence is not inadmissible by law, must be accepted as correct, I completely agree- UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.