When an Affidavit Speaks Without an Oath: Understanding Competence and Substance in Nigerian Legal Practice

■ INTRODUCTION

In the courtroom, words matter, but not just any words. Some must be spoken under oath, witnessed, and sealed with solemnity. In Nigerian legal practice, few documents carry as much weight and vulnerability as the affidavit. It is both a declaration of truth and a sacred commitment, but what happens when that oath is defective? Can an affidavit still stand tall in the eyes of the law?
The Nigerian courts have spoken clearly: no oath, no affidavit.

■ The Legal Soul of an Affidavit.
At its simplest, an affidavit is a written statement made under oath, used to prove facts in court. But that oath is not a mere formality, it is the soul of the document. Without it, the affidavit is a lifeless paper, legally impotent and evidentially worthless.
This principle was powerfully affirmed in DR. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ONUJABE & ORS. v. FATIMA IDRIS (2011) LPELR-4059 (CA), where the Court of Appeal emphasized that the swearing of an affidavit before a Commissioner for Oaths is not a procedural nicety; it is a condition precedent to its validity.
In the words of the Court:
“The Oaths Act is a general statute that deals with oaths. The provision under the Evidence Act on affidavit places a condition precedent, which ought to be fulfilled to render the affidavit competent. One fundamental condition is the swearing on oath before the Commissioner for Oaths. It is on this vein that the provision under the Oaths Act becomes relevant. That is why a defect, as regards the swearing on oath, is not a mere irregularity as to form but a defect as to substance.”
This statement underscores a simple but profound truth, a defective oath kills the affidavit.
The Authority of ALIYU v. BULAKI (2019) LPELR-46513(CA)
In Aliyu v. Bulaki (2019), the Court of Appeal reinforced this sacredness of the oath. The Court noted that when an affidavit is not properly sworn before a competent authority, it cannot be regarded as an affidavit within the meaning of the law.
Put differently, an unsworn or improperly sworn affidavit has no evidential value whatsoever. The court cannot act on it. It is as though no affidavit was filed at all.
This decision aligns with the judiciary’s consistent insistence that legal documents must not only exist, they must exist lawfully.
MARAYA PLASTICS LTD. v. INLAND BANK NIG. PLC (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 765) 109
Earlier, in Maraya Plastics Ltd. v. Inland Bank Nig. Plc, the Court had set a firm foundation on the necessity of proper attestation. The court held that any affidavit not sworn before an authorized person is a nullity. This decision continues to echo through subsequent rulings as a warning against procedural shortcuts and administrative carelessness.
An affidavit is not just about paper and ink; it is about truth affirmed under law. It must be sworn properly, before a commissioner empowered to administer oaths, and in compliance with the Oaths Act.

■ Why This Matters: Substance Over Form.
To many lawyers and litigants, it may seem trivial, what harm could arise if an affidavit was signed but not properly sworn? The courts, however, draw a sharp line between form and substance.
A mere typographical error or date inconsistency is a matter of form.
But failure to swear before a commissioner, or swearing before an unauthorized person, is a matter of substance.
It strikes at the root of the affidavit’s authenticity and admissibility. Courts are bound to reject such documents, no matter how persuasive the facts contained within them.
The Practical Lesson for Lawyers and Litigants
The message from these cases is clear:
Every affidavit must carry the weight of a lawful oath. Before filing, confirm that:
1. It was sworn before a duly appointed Commissioner for Oaths;
2. The deponent personally appeared before the commissioner;
3. The commissioner properly endorsed and stamped the affidavit; and
4. The oath complies with the Oaths Act and Evidence Act.
Anything less risks the affidavit being struck out, potentially derailing an entire case.

■ A Reflection on Legal Integrity.
At a deeper level, this line of cases reflects something larger than procedural discipline, it reflects the moral conscience of the legal system. An oath is a solemn promise of truth; when that promise is faked or omitted, justice itself is compromised.
The courts’ insistence on strict compliance is not mere legalism, it is a defense of truth and credibility in the justice process. Every sworn statement must mean something, and every oath must bind the conscience of the deponent.

■ Conclusion.
From Maraya Plastics to Aliyu v. Bulaki and Onujabe v. Idris, the law has remained unshaken:
An affidavit is only as valid as its oath.
A document that pretends to be sworn but is not, is not just irregular, it is incompetent.
In law, and in life, the truth must be affirmed, not assumed.