Safeguarding Justice or Impeding Compliance? A Critical Analysis of Evidence Admissibility Under Nigeria's ACJA 2015 And Evidence Act

This paper critically examines the relationship between the procedural safeguards governing evidence collection under Sections 15 and 17 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 and the judicial discretion to admit improperly obtained evidence under Section 14 of the Evidence Act. The ACJA provisions constitute a deliberate legislative effort to strengthen suspects’ fundamental rights by prescribing clear protocols for the taking of confessional statements, including written documentation, electronic recording where feasible, and the presence of legal counsel or other designated persons. These safeguards are intended to promote transparency, ensure voluntariness, and prevent coercive investigative practices, thereby reinforcing the right to a fair trial. In contrast, Section 14 of the Evidence Act presents a jurisprudential challenge by empowering courts to admit evidence obtained unlawfully, subject to a balancing test that weighs the desirability of admission against the undesirability of the impropriety. While both statutory frameworks ostensibly pursue justice and due process, this discretionary regime risks undermining the mandatory character and protective purpose of the ACJA safeguards. The resulting tension reflects a broader conflict between strict procedural compliance and the pragmatic pursuit of truth in criminal adjudication. Through a comparative and doctrinal legal analysis, this paper evaluates the implications of this statutory interplay for human rights protection, police accountability, and the credibility of judicial outcomes within Nigeria’s criminal justice system. It concludes by advocating for a harmonized approach to evidence admissibility that promotes legal certainty while preserving the rights-protective objectives of the ACJA