By Bamidele Kolawole

An affidavit is a legal document sworn to under oath, to serve as evidence of facts within the knowledge of the deponent. By its nature, an affidavit deals with past or present events known to the person making the statement.

Morality and the law are one of the twin pillars which in my opinion are indispensable in the administration of justice. Little wonder why punitive measures have been incorporated into our laws, specifically the Criminal Code, criminalizing the acts of lying on oath.

Where this happens, such person is said to have perjured and may be convicted for the offence of perjury.

It is, therefore, incumbent on a deponent to pursuant to Section 115 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, state fact within his personal knowledge or from information which he believes to be true.

Furthermore, according to Section 115 (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, a person is expected to state the facts and circumstances forming the ground of his belief where such facts is not within his personal knowledge.

Thus, where a witness fails to state facts in line with the aforementioned Section 115 of the Evidence Act, he/she renders him/herself liable to perjury and other allied offence by simply making false statements, or by simply making true assertions which he does not reasonably believe to be true.

Importantly, the law by virtue of Section 206 of the Evidence Act, 2011, underscores the implications of willfully misleading the court as follows: “Any witness summoned to give oral evidence in any proceeding shall before giving such evidence be cautioned by the court, or the registrar upon the court’s direction, in the following words-

‘You _(Full name)……._ are here by cautioned that if you tell a lie in your testimony in this proceeding or willfully mislead this court you are liable to be prosecuted and if found guilty you will be seriously dealt with according to law’ “.

In the Nigerian Penal Code, however, under Section 156, such evidence must have been given on oath.

The provisions of Section 156 of the Penal Code, as it relates to oath taking is akin to both Sections 1(1) of the English Perjury Act, 1911, and 1621 of the United States Code.

Section 117 of the Criminal Code Law, Vol 1, Cap 37, Laws of Ondo of Nigeria, 2006, on the other hand provides that “Any person who, in any judicial proceeding, or for the purpose of instituting any judicial proceeding, knowingly gives false testimony touching any matter which is material to any question then pending in that proceeding, or intended to be raised in that proceeding, is guilty of an offence, which is called perjury.

It provides further that ‘it is immaterial whether the testimony is given on oath or under any other sanction authorised by law…….It is immaterial whether the false testimony is given orally or in writing’ “

Pursuant to Section 118 of the Criminal Code, a perjurer is liable to be sentenced to an imprisonment of 14 years in the event he is convicted for the offence of perjury.

 It is imperative to state unequivocally, that the law of perjury or false evidence is founded on the need for litigants to experience and achieve justice when their conflicts come before the court.

Consequently, the rationale for criminalizing lies cannot be far-fetched; to prevent litigants from usurping of the powers of the court, to instill in litigants and witnesses the credibility and politeness of coming clean before the court and stating the true facts surrounding the subject or object of the dispute, and to prevent the occasion of injustice.

Notably, If falsehood is not penalized or criminalized,

a leeway for false claims, statements and assertions in the justice system will be established, making certain a death of trust in the judiciary.

With that having been said, quite easy one may say, it is apt that certain thoughts follow suit. The thought of what happens to certain categories of

litigants like the accused.

Should the accused or defendant in a criminal proceeding confess and plead guilty to the crime without more or should he lean on the presumption of innocence and the proof-beyond reasonable-doubt requirements of the law and plead not guilty? And if he does the second, would he or should he not be charged with perjury if the matter becomes res judicata? If that is the state of things, should every accused person who pleaded not guilty during arraignment and plea but is later found guilty and convicted and knows the evidence against him is so overwhelming not be charged with perjury? If that is also on the affirmative, does it then connote that every accused who is convicted actually committed the crime for which he was charged? Again, should an accused who falsely raises and relies on a defence aimed at misleading the court or tribunal in his favour not be charged with perjury or false evidence when his defence turns out holding no water and fails?

Perjury can be made manifest in variant ways, for instance, where there are contradictory statements in the written evidence and the oral testimony of a witness. In such situation, a witness could be said to have perjured.

As earlier stated, a deliberate false answer to a question asked which borders on the fact in issue also leads credence to perjury.

Invariably, no matter how false a statement is or how untrue a deposition is discovered to be, such perjury is only successfully enforceable in the face of the corroborative testimony of two witnesses or one other witness substantiating a material evidence already in existence.

Notably, no offender/accused person can be arrested without a warrant nor can he be convicted uncorroborated (unverified) evidence of one witness.

With the wider scope and constituents of perjury, it would be apt to state that the offence of perjury is one that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.

A deponent can indeed face criminal liability for failing to fulfill a promise made in an affidavit, particularly if the affidavit contains statements that are untrue or misleading. While affidavits are primarily factual statements based on the deponent’s knowledge, they carry legal weight, and providing false information can lead to charges of perjury. Perjury is defined as making a false statement under oath concerning a material matter, with the intent to deceive or mislead.

In legal contexts, an affidavit is a sworn statement that must be truthful and is often used as evidence in court. If a deponent makes a promise in an affidavit—such as affirming the truthfulness of the information provided—and later fails to uphold that promise by providing false information, they could be charged with perjury. This is because the act of swearing to the truth of the statements implies a commitment to their accuracy.

Moreover, if the affidavit includes future promises or intentions that are not fulfilled, while this may not directly lead to perjury charges, it could still result in legal consequences depending on the context and how those statements are interpreted by the court. Courts generally expect affidavits to contain only factual statements based on personal knowledge or belief derived from credible sources. Thus, if a deponent knowingly includes false future intentions in an affidavit, this could also lead to legal repercussions.

In summary, while affidavits primarily state facts rather than future events, any misrepresentation or failure to fulfill promises made within them can expose the deponent to criminal liability under perjury laws.

AFFIDAVIT is a legal Document deposed to on oath to serve as Evidence of Facts within the knowledge of the Deponent. So by nature AFFIDAVIT is about Past or Present events, known to the person who is speaking through the Affidavit.   So, I say Yes, a deponent can be criminally liable for providing false information in an affidavit, particularly when it’s about past facts.

    The consequences of lying on oath can be very grievous, because of:

Perjury laws: Making false statements under oath or affirmation can lead to perjury charges.

False statements: Intentionally providing false information in an affidavit can be considered a criminal offence.

The oath Law requires an Affidavit to be

1. Truthful: Affidavits require truthful statements, based on personal knowledge or information.

2. Materially factual: Omitting or misrepresenting material facts can be considered false.

A Deponent can be Criminally Liable if;

a. Intentionally, Knowing or recklessly falsify information to mislead.

b. Material False statements are material to the case or proceeding.For which reasons serious Consequences can follow, which includes; *Perjury charges: Felony or misdemeanor, depending on jurisdiction.* *Imprisonment for a certain period of time.

*Fines: Significant monetary penalties.

*Loss of credibility, as Future testimony or statements may be questioned even if they appear unquestionable.

 But what happens when Affidavit becomes futuristic? For Example when the Deponent is a suspect at the police station in a Case involving money and the police demand of the deponent to depose to the AFFIDAVIT as to when and how he will pay the Money before he could be released.

As I said earlier, affidavits typically focus on past facts, hence statements about future events can be problematic because;

1. It could create Intention to deceive:  2. It could appear as if the Deponent Made false promises or representations.

3. Because of unforeseen natural events, material facts could turn out in the opposite.

In such cases, criminal liability may still attach, depending on jurisdiction and circumstances. But there is the Burden of Proof of the offence that may be charged pursuant to that.

Typically, affidavits focus on past or present facts within the deponent’s knowledge. However, in some cases, a deponent may make statements regarding future intentions, plans, or expectations, thereby making promises, which may fail, due to circumstances beyond the Deponent’s powers.

Futuristic Statements in Affidavits are speculative in nature, and may after all, not occur as stated. Such Affidavit may contain statements that are unintentionally lacking certainty or accuracy, as Intentions or plans may change due to the subjective nature of such Affidavit.

Such Affidavits have Potentials for being misleading, because events can change the original intention of the maker

Consequences of Futuristic Statements:_

1. Perjury risks: though it will be difficult to prove that the statement is knowingly false. In my opinion a Futuristic Affidavit is limited in its powers to Estopped the Deponent, and to create criminal Liability because of the Burden of Proof.

My honest advice to a maker of Futuristic Affidavit is: use conditional language, and Clarify intentions from assumptions. But will the Police take that? The only way a Futuristic Affidavit can work against a maker, is for him to admit he or she is owing and undertake to defray the alleged Sum of money, no more. As deposition to pay on a specific future date could turn out to be Speculative and cannot be said to be within the Deponent’s knowledge.

Affidavits typically contain statements of fact within the deponent’s knowledge, not promises or future commitments.

The Nigerian Evidence Act 2011 and the Criminal Code provide relevant guidance particularly Section 118 of the Criminal Code. It states that making false statements under oath can lead to perjury charges.

While affidavits primarily contain statements of fact, a deponent may face civil liability for failing to fulfill promises made within. Criminal liability is possible if the deponent intentionally provides false information or obstructs justice.

To mitigate risks, deponents should ensure statements are truthful and within their knowledge; avoid making promises or commitments in affidavits, and seek legal advice before executing an affidavit.

However, criminal liability is less common and depends on specific circumstances. To establish criminal liability, the prosecution must prove the deponent intentionally made false statements or knowingly concealed information.

Although promises or commitments made in an affidavit may not be legally enforceable, as they are not contracts, the offence of perjury occurs when the deponent intentionally provides false information or lies under oath.

Also the person can be charged with obstruction of justice if his false statement or failure to fulfill a promise hinders a criminal investigation or judicial process or if the deponent’s actions are deemed contemptuous, such as intentionally providing false information to deceive the court.

In the final analysis, civil liability occurs when promise made in an affidavit constitutes a contractual agreement and the deponent breached the contract, enabling an action under tort law- he may be liable for damages if the false statement or failure to fulfill a promise causes harm to another party or claimant.

Generally, a deponent cannot be held criminally liable for failing to fulfill a promise made in an affidavit, because affidavits are intended to be statements of fact within the deponent’s personal knowledge, not commitments or promises about future actions. However, there are some nuances to consider:

1. Nature of the Statement: If the affidavit contains a false statement of an existing fact, the deponent can be criminally liable for perjury. Perjury involves knowingly making a false statement under oath.

2. Misrepresentation: If the “promise” in the affidavit was presented as a fact (e.g., “I have already arranged to do X”), but this was knowingly false, it could also lead to liability for perjury or fraud.

3. Enforceability of Promises: Promises about future actions are typically not enforceable through criminal law, unless they are part of a fraudulent scheme to deceive or harm someone. In such cases, the criminal charge might be fraud or obtaining something under false pretences, not a failure to fulfill a promise per se.

4. Good Faith and Intent: If the affidavit reflects the deponent’s good faith and intention at the time of swearing the affidavit, but they later fail to fulfill the promise for legitimate reasons, criminal liability is unlikely. The law does not criminalize mere failure to act on an intention unless accompanied by fraudulent or deceitful conduct.

In summary, affidavits should contain factual statements, and failure to fulfill a promise is not inherently criminal unless it involves fraud, deceit, or intentional misrepresentation

An affidavit is a legal document sworn under oath to serve as evidence of facts within the knowledge of the deponent. By its nature, an affidavit deals with past or present events known to the person making the statement.

A deponent can be criminally liable for providing false information in an affidavit, particularly when it concerns past facts. The consequences of lying under oath are severe and include:

1. Perjury Laws: Making false statements under oath can lead to perjury charges.

2. False Statements: Intentionally providing false information in an affidavit is a criminal offence.

Legal Requirements for Affidavits

1. Be truthful: Based on personal knowledge or verified information.

2. Contain materially factual statements: Omissions or misrepresentations of material facts can be considered false.

A deponent may be criminally liable if:

a. They intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly falsify information to mislead.

b. The false statements are material to the case or proceeding.

The consequences of such actions may include:

Perjury charges (felony or misdemeanour, depending on jurisdiction).

Imprisonment for a specified period.

Fines: Significant monetary penalties.

Loss of credibility: Future testimony may be questioned.

What happens when an affidavit addresses future events? For instance, if a deponent in police custody for a money-related case is asked to depose to an affidavit on when and how they will repay the money.

As noted earlier, affidavits are generally about past or present facts. Statements about future events can be problematic because:

1. They may create an intention to deceive.

2. They may involve false promises or representations.

3. Unforeseen events could render the promise unfulfilled.

Futuristic affidavits are speculative in nature. Statements in such affidavits might unintentionally lack certainty or accuracy because intentions or plans can change. Events outside the deponent’s control may alter the original intention, making the affidavit potentially misleading.

1. Perjury Risks: While proving a knowingly false statement is difficult, perjury charges may arise.

2. Limited Liability: Futuristic affidavits are less likely to create criminal liability due to the burden of proof.

In summary, affidavits should focus on past or present facts. Statements about the future carry significant risks and should be carefully framed to avoid potential legal consequences.

Section 115(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 enjoins a deponent, as a witness, to depose to facts in an affidavit that are “either of his own personal knowledge or from information which he believes to be true.”

A deponent can only be criminally liable if they state facts that are not true under oath. Promises are not to be made in an affidavit.