practitioner, witness, prosecution witness and so on. This makes him loose his protection and opens him to cross examination-R V Mclead. In R V Varley, one defendant said that he took part in the robbery under duress from the first accused, the first accused denied. Held that he can be cross-examined. Motive is irrelevant-R V Stannard. [1] 1961 1 All ER 878 [2] 1997 7 SCNJ 518 where the court noted that, you can delve into a person’s past and draw up as much dirt as you can find there so as to discredit him. [3] 2001 SCNJ 315 at 375. [4] 1995 2 CAR 478. [5] See also; In Olaniyan V Adeniyi where the court noted that cross-examination is a potent tool for perforating falsehood. [6] 1920 p 126 at 145. [7] 1836 7 c and p 308. [8] 1868 18 LT 243 [9] (1990) 3 NWLR pt 139 392. The appellant applied to the Federal Electoral Commission to contest election into the constituent Assembly and was disqualified by the commission. He thereafter held a News Conference where he claimed and stated that he had served the Army meritoriously and with an unblemished record before he resigned voluntarily. The Nigerian Army confirmed the inaccuracy of the statement, held a News Conference where the Appellant’s claims were rebutted and the respondent published the statements of the Army and were sued by the Appellant for defamation. The respondents admitted the publication and averred that the words complained of were fair and accurate report of information of the public by the Nigerian Army. The court held Quoting Mcpherson V Daniel “for the law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he does not… possess.” (Culled from Law Pavillon). See also Scott V Daily Times of Nigeria 1990 1 NWLR pt 124. Asheik V MT Nig Ltd 2010 15 NWLR pt