Short answer. The earlier statement must first be put to the witness. The rule requires that it be related to him with the circumstances of the times, places and persons present, that he be asked whether he made it, and that he be allowed to explain.
What the law says
the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain them
Rule 132, Section 13 — Party may not impeach his or her own witness. Read the full provision →
You cannot simply spring it later
The instinct is to hold the earlier inconsistent statement back and produce it after the witness has committed himself, so that the contradiction lands without warning. The rule does not permit that. It sets out steps that must be taken before a witness can be impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. Skipping them does not merely cost dramatic effect; it means the foundation the rule requires has not been laid.
The detail the rule asks for
The statement has to be related to him, and not in the abstract. The rule specifies the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present. In other words the witness must be given enough context to identify the particular occasion being referred to, rather than being asked a vague question about whether he ever said something different. Only then is he asked whether he made the statement. The specificity is the point: a witness cannot fairly confirm or deny an occasion he cannot place.
The chance to explain is part of the requirement
The rule does not stop at asking the witness whether he made the statement. If he did, he must be allowed to explain. That is what makes this a fair-notice provision rather than a formality. People say inconsistent things for reasons that are sometimes innocent — imperfect memory, a misunderstood question, an account given before they knew all the facts. The rule ensures the court hears any such explanation from the witness himself, alongside the contradiction, rather than only the contradiction.
Where the statement is in writing
The rule adds a further step for written statements: If the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them. So a prior affidavit or signed statement is handed to the witness first, before he is questioned about its contents. If you are holding what you believe is a damaging prior statement, bring it to your lawyer well before the hearing, because how and when it is put to the witness governs whether it can be used at all.