Critique of Admissibility of Expert witness in justice delivery among courts in Nigeria in comparison with United States of America and United Kingdom

Abstract

The Use of expert witnesses is now an integral part of justice administration and delivery across the globe. In an increasingly complex society, faced with complex multi-dimensional challenges and increasing crime rates, the need for expert witnesses to solve these challenges has become inevitable. It follows that in the adjudication of conflicting claims, the courts are bound to confront more expert witnesses in the immediate future. However, the courts are now being confronted with divergent and not-up-to-standard expert opinions. It has become increasingly necessary to have definitive rules and standards that regulate the admissibility of expert witnesses in Nigeria to be able to separate a scientific based expert report from a sham.  Unreliable, biased and questionable evidence can be inadvertently admitted and relied upon by a court of law when there are no clearly defined admissibility standards or regulations. This paper focuses on providing a step-by-step analysis of the factors that the court takes into consideration in deciding whether or not to admit an expert witness and to evaluate the effectiveness of such criteria. This paper adopts the use of comparative doctrinal methodology to evaluate the requirements of the admissibility of expert evidence in Nigeria and its inadequacies. By way of a comparative study, lessons are drawn from the admissibility criterion of expert witnesses in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The paper recommends more robust requirements for the admissibility of expert witnesses in Nigeria and a review of the current practice.

Keywords: Expert witness; opinion evidence; admissibility; Daubert standards