Perjury as an offence has often been relegated to the confines of paper books. This is despite the tons of witnesses and deponents who intentionally and willfully base their testimonies on falsehood and lies, and the plausible sanctions spelt out in various criminal codes, making the reason for the lukewarmness of the offence a wonder and its relevance a doubt. It is for this reason that this thesis emerged. This paper, therefore, evaluates perjury from majorly four countries of Nigeria, United States, Scotland and India, exposes what their law on perjury is, compares their different provisions as it bothers on what can be perjurious, analyses the basis of the law and highlights thoughts to help cover the loopholes in the law. The paper further explores judicial attitude to legal lies, the circumstances where perjury is said to have been committed and the conviction therein, making a comparison of the decisions. The paper is concluded with several observations, challenges facing the seeming irrelevance of the law and offer of recommendations. Some of the suggestions is to limit the definition of perjury, extend its scope to claimants and plaintiffs, extend criminal culpability in the law to persons who aided and counseled the perjury, as well as the parastatals in charge of justice remind lawyers and the public on the effect of perjury and the need to enforce it.