Chimezie Onuzulike, in his article, Affidavit Evidence and The Advocate-Witness Rule: A Critique of the Recent Decisions of the Supreme Court, examines the ethical issues arising when counsel combines the role of advocate and witness for a client. Onuzulike posits that in the course of prosecuting their client’s case, lawyers may know of certain facts because of their involvement in the events giving rise to those facts. The facts may relate to investigations undertaken as part of the representation or may even relate to matters of practice and procedure, which means that the lawyers are more competent to speak to those facts. Therefore, in reality, a lawyer may find himself in a situation where he may have to act as a witness for his client. The situation is complicated where the lawyer is required to give oral evidence and be cross-examined, but much less so when all he has to do is depose to facts within his personal knowledge in an affidavit on behalf of the client. The Nigerian courts have not only held that a lawyer cannot depose to affidavits on behalf of his client as that would amount to a breach of ethical rules, but also that such an affidavit deposed to by a lawyer is incompetent and would be discountenanced. Onuzulike argues that the position of the Nigerian courts on lawyers deposing to affidavits on behalf of their clients is erroneous, problematic and misses the point.