Legalpedia Citation: (2009) Legalpedia (SC) 61119
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 3, 2009
Suit Number: SC. 283/2005
CORAM
SHEHU USMAN MOHAMMED Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SHEHU USMAN MOHAMMED Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SHEHU USMAN MOHAMMED Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SHEHU USMAN MOHAMMED Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAHI MUNTAKA-COMMASIE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU (Lead Judgment),JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
SHEHU USMAN MOHAMMED Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN , JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN , JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
SHEHU USMAN MOHAMMED Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SHEHU USMAN MOHAMMED Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
PARTIES
KABIR ALMU APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering Abdulkabir while robbing him of N 55, 700. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. He has further appealed
HELD
Appeal allowed
ISSUES
1. Whether the identification parade of the Appellant was done in accordance with the Law.?
2. Whether the appellant properly set up a defence of alibi.?
3. Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DEFENCE OF ALIBI IS A COMPLETE DEFENCE
The defence of alibi raised by an accused person to a charge is, as I earlier stated in this judgment, an absolute/complete defence to the charge. Per Onnoghen, JSC
Once an alibi has been raised, the burden is on the prosecution to investigate and rebut such evidence in order to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Per Katsina-Alu, JSC
WHEN CONFLICT OR CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION WITNESS WILL BE FATAL
If there are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution, and the contradictions materially affect the charge, doubt will be created and the benefit of it must be given to the accused person, in which case he will be discharged. Per Katsina-Alu, JSC
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IDENTIFICATION PARADE WILL BE NECESSARY
Identification parade is only necessary in the following circumstances:
A. Where the victim (witness) did not know the accused before and the first acquaintance with him is during the commission of the offence;
B. Where the victim (witness) was confronted by the defendant for a very short time; and
c. Where the victim (witness) due to time and circumstance might not have had the opportunity of observing the features of the accused. Per Katsina-Alu, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Bozin v. The State (1985) ANLR 199.
2. Ikemson v. The State (1989) 3 NWLR (Part-110) 455 at 472.
3. Adio v. The State (1989) 5NWLR (Pt. 31) 714;
4. Onachukwu v. The State (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt.547) 576 at 592;5. Odili v. The State (1977) 4. S.C.I.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE