ON WHETHER DEMEANOUR PER SE DETERMINES CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS

Demeanour refers to the outward conduct, behaviour, attitude, and manner of a witness while giving evidence before a court of law. It includes how a witness speaks, responds to questions, reacts under cross-examination, and generally presents themselves in the witness box. In judicial proceedings, demeanour is observed by the trial judge as part of the process of assessing credibility; however, it is not determined by appearance alone but is considered alongside the substance, consistency, and reliability of the evidence given.

Demeanour is tenuous and fluid, hence, can be misleading and can sometimes be subjective. Therefore, where the evidence of the witness before the court centers on an account of events or incidents which the witness claim to have witnessed, more objective yardsticks such as the distance between the witness and the location of the incident witnessed, the hour of the day ,the state of lighting at the location, the likely motive of the witness and whether the evidence of the witness accords with or is an affront to logic and common sense will be more appropriate parameters in assessing the credibility of the witness.


In the trial of cases, courts are often faced with the difficult task of deciding who is telling the truth and who is not. Beyond the words spoken by a witness, judges also observe how the witness speaks, behaves, hesitates, or responds under cross-examination. This outward conduct, commonly referred to as demeanour, has traditionally played a role in assessing the credibility of witnesses. 


The principle of demeanour touches the very foundation of evidence law, particularly the responsibility of the trial court to evaluate testimony. While the trial judge enjoys the advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses firsthand, Nigerian courts have consistently cautioned against placing undue reliance on demeanour without considering the substance, consistency, and probability of the evidence given. The danger lies in elevating appearances over facts, emotions over logic, and impressions over proof.


This principle has been anchored in the recent case of STATE V. IBRAHIM (2025) 5 NWLR (PT. 1984) 545, which examines the judicial approach to demeanour as a test of credibility. It explores whether demeanour per se is decisive, or whether it merely complements other evidential factors in the search for justice.


The Supreme Court stated that:


"In the instant appeal, I am not on the same page with the learned trial Judge in his approach to the evaluation of the evidence before and the conclusion arrived thereat. There is evidence of PW2 and PW3 at page 6-7of the record of appeal where the duo testified in chief that the incident occurred between7-8pm. These same witnesses also testified under cross-examination that they viewed the alleged beating, macheting and throwing of the deceased into the pitch from a distance of 50-60 meters away from their location or from a location beyond hearing shot. There is no evidence from the prosecution on the state of lighting around the location. All the foregoing cast a pall of doubt on the credibility of the evidence of the appellant’s witnesses.”


For the sake of clarity, the simple fact of the case is as follows:


The appellant’s case was that on the day of the incident, after magrib prayers around 7 - 8p.m., PW1, along with some people, were seated on a mat resting when they saw many people, all young men, armed with offensive weapons such as cutlasses and sticks, heading in their direction and abusing them. They got up and started abusing the group in reprisal. The two feuding groups were separated by some elderly people in the town and the group of young men was driven back and they went and sat down again. Later, the deceased came out of the mosque and appealed to the young men to go away and the deceased went with them to a distance. PW1 and PW2 stated that they then saw the young man grabbing the deceased; that the deceased fell into a ditch and was later brought out with several injuries on his head inflicted by the group of young men; and that the deceased was taken to the hospital where he eventually died about three months later.


The case of the respondent was that the deceased was not beaten by anyone; but that while trying to separate the feuding parties, the deceased pulled at him and they both slipped and fell into a ditch and whereupon the deceased suffered a head injury which led to his hospitalisation; and that they later learnt that the deceased died.


In the instant case of STATE V. IBRAHIM (SUPRA), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that ;


the demeanour of a witness does not, per se, determine credibility. Although the trial court is entitled to observe the conduct of witnesses in the witness box, such observation must not replace a careful evaluation of the substance, consistency, and probability of the evidence. The Court stressed that credibility is determined from the totality of the evidence before the court, and not merely from the manner in which a witness testifies.


The Supreme Court went further to state that; Demeanour must be considered together with: The consistency of the witness’ testimony; the probability of the evidence; it’s corroboration (where required); the totality of the evidence before the court.
 

The Nigerian Supreme Court has repeatedly held that:


“The trial court which sees and hears a witness, has the exclusive responsibility to assess demeanour in determining the credibility of that witness. This decision is given great respect by appellate courts because the trial judge has the advantage of personal observation of the witness’s manner, attitude, composure and behaviour in the witness box.”


As seen in the following related cases: Alabi v. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.307) 511; Onafowokan v. State (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61) 538; Sanusi v. State (2023) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1892) 253; Okere v. IGP (2024) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1961) 341; Olarenwaju v. State (2024) 11.


In conclusion, based on the above principle and case, if the trial judge in State v. Ibrahim (Supra) based the conviction only on how a witness behaved in court, without evaluating the substance, consistency, probability and corroborative strength of the testimony, the Supreme Court would likely criticize that approach. Supreme Court jurisprudence holds that demeanour alone does not automatically make a witness credible; it is only one of several factors that must be considered.


Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the trial court (as affirmed by the Court of Appeal) on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The Court held that the trial court did not rely on demeanour alone in assessing credibility, but properly evaluated the substance, consistency, and overall probative value of the evidence before it.




About the Authors:

AISHA ABDULLATEEF AND HABEEBULLAH B HASSAN are members of the Research and Litigation Directorate, Solace Chambers, Bayero University, Kano. They can be reached via: 08165796810 and 09036512217, respectively.