Adebimpe, Razaq Justice2021-05-272021-05-272011-03-120794-4349https://uilspace.unilorin.edu.ng/handle/20.500.12484/5452This article examined the effect of the case of R v Golder, in which the statement of the inconsistent rule was made in relation to the evidence of a witness to the prosecution. It is argued that, notwithstanding that an accused person is a competent witness, the rule was formulated to apply only to a retracted extra-judicial confession of an ordinary witness and the rule is not to be expanded to cover a retracted extra-judicial confession of an accused person.enExtra-judicial statementsConfessionsInconsistency-RuleCompetent WitnessArticle