A court is established by law, to settle disputes between individuals, groups, institutions, companies, etc. A court is always controlled by a Judge. A judge is required by law to administer justice in the settlement of disputes before the court. A judge in doing so, is guided by the law.
The law therefore dictates to the judge, what must and mustn’t be taken into consideration before giving a judgment. In the courts, to establish or prove your story or allegation as true, the law requires that you bring to the judge’s attention all materials that can be physically verified. Thus, a relevant material or matter that the court can feel, see or touch.
You may have heard about stories or allegations where:
1. witchcraft is alleged to have killed some persons;
2. people have confessed to visiting fetish shrines to kill relatives, friends or strangers;
3. a person is said to have invoked curses resulting in tragedies; and many others.
Most of these stories are merely published in the newspapers and never taken to the courts. The reason is because, such spiritual matters cannot be touched, felt or seen by the courts, and therefore should not be entertained by the courts.
The above notwithstanding, there is an exception to the non-consideration of spiritual matters by the courts, and this exception is referred to as the rule of admission.
In law, when a story, a statement or an allegation is admitted or confessed to, the law requires no further proof of such story, statement or allegation once the said story, statement or allegation is, in the mind of the judge, relevant to resolve the dispute before the court.
In a case where a person is alleged to have used some supernatural powers to commit a crime, the court is permitted to consider such an allegation as true in reaching a judgment or conclusion, only if the person against whom the allegation was made, admits or confesses to same.
In the absence of any admission or confession, judges are mandated to disregard any allegation regarding spiritual matters in the adjudication of disputes before the courts, especially so when the person against whom the allegations are made denies them.
The court must not consider spiritual matters because it cannot be touched ,seen or feel by the court and therefore it shouldn’t be entertained by the courts.
Why then do the court believe in the sweating by the Bible or other religious objects? These all have spiritual connotations. Is the court therefore not pretending to the coercing people to act based on the spiritual?
Can someone then refuse to swear in any form?
The law recognizes the rights and freedoms of individuals to join a religion. So in court, a person may swear either by the Quran, the bible or the cross (a catholic). A person may however refuse to swear, by affirming. This the law requires because the law is interested in the truth, and by asking people to swear (which isn’t compulsory), the law deems it the only way fit a court may bring itself closest to knowing the truth from the people who appear before it. So even in instances where a person swears, the court still recognizes that the person may or may not tell the truth.
The court believe in swearing because the Holy Bible can be touched, seen or feel,
therefore, swearing of the Holy Bible should be entertain by the court.
Very useful..
Thank you