CORAM
PARTIES
MAMMAN BUBARE
THE STATE
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Justice, Yobe State and charged for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the Penal Code, to which the Appellant pleaded not guilty. At the end of the trial, the Court found the Appellant guilty as charged, convicted and sentenced him to death by hanging. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal wherein he complained on five (5) grounds.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether having regard to the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4, the trial Judge was right when he convicted the Appellant on same. Whether having regard to the non-disclosure of the place and time of the incidence by the prosecution witnesses, the trial Judge was right when he held that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused person now Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS – WHEN ARE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS SAID TO BE MATERIAL?
“The law is settled that discrepancies or contradictions in the evidence of a witness are said to be material where they go to an issue of fact which must be determined before a proper verdict can be arrived at in a case, or where the circumstances in which they occurred were such as to cast a doubt on the credibility of the witness or witnesses. Thus, a contradiction is material only when it touches on an important element or issue which the prosecution needs to prove to succeed in its case – Igbi V State (2000) NWLR (Pt. 648) 169, per Ayoola, JSC; Idi Musa V State (2017) LPELR-43246(CA) 33-34, E-B.
However, it is also the law that a party’s case is not vitiated by the mere existence of contradictions in the evidence he has adduced. A contradiction is fatal to a party’s case only if it is material and substantial. A contradiction is material if it exists in the evidence on the issue being tried; and it is substantial if it will affect the decision of the Court on the issue. Therefore, the contradiction must not only be material, it must equally be substantial.
CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS – PRINCIPLE OF LAW ON CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS
Furthermore, the law does not insist that there must be absolutely no contradictions in the evidence of witnesses called by a party on any issue in contention. The principle of law is that contradictions by witnesses should not be material to the extent that they cast serious doubts on the case presented as a whole by that party or as to the reliability of such witnesses. Put another way, the contradiction and inconsistency in the testimony of witnesses capable of upturning the decision of the trial Court has to be material contradictions and inconsistencies that affect the substance of the case, and not mere discrepancies – Nwokoro V Onuma (1999) 9 SC 59; Kareem V State (2017) LPELR-43746(CA) 16; Uto V Eze (2015) LPELR-25745(CA) 29.
Thus, it is not every contradiction or inconsistency in the evidence adduced by the prosecution that will have the effect of discrediting the totality of the prosecution’s case. For a contradiction to affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case.it must be on material facts that touch on the root or essential elements/ingredients of the offence charged. Therefore, minor or minute contradictions will be treated under the de minimis rule – Osung V State (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt, 1332) 256, 278, F-H; Bassey V State (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1314) 209; Iko V State (2001) LPELR-1489(SC); Cpl. Isah Ahmed V Nigerian Army (2016) LPELR-40826(SC); Musa V State (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1165) 467, per Fabiyi, JSC; Akanji V State (2020) LPELR-49531(CA) 24. –
CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES – NATURE OF CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES THAT WOULD AVAIL AN ACCUSED PERSON
“As was held by the Supreme Court in Usiobaifo V Usiobaifo (2005) 1 SC (Pt. II) 60:
“It is trite law that contradictions in the evidence of witnesses can only avail the opposite party where they are material, substantial and affect the live issues in the matter, to the extent that they affect the fortunes of the appeal in favour of the party raising the issue.”
Again, the Supreme Court in Dagayya V State (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 980) 637 held that for an Appellant to succeed on the ground of contradictions in the evidence of witnesses, the contradictions must be shown to be a substantial disparagement of the witnesses concerned, making it dangerous or likely to result in a miscarriage of justice to rely on the evidence of the witness or witnesses.
Thus, contradictions in the evidence of witnesses may not necessarily be fatal to the case especially when they are minor; and the Judgement of the trial Court will not be reversed on appeal merely because there were minor discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses. It must be further shown that the Judge did not advert his mind to those contradictions, which is not the case in the instant case. See Taiwo V Ogundele (2012) LPELR-7803(SC); Nwachukwu V Owunwanne (2011) LPELR-3466(SC); Adoga V State (2014) LPELR-22944(CA) 67.
Also, it is well to heed the admonition of Fabiyi, JSC on the matter of contradictions in Musa V State (supra) at 467 that it is not every miniature contradiction that can vitiate the case of the prosecution. Minor contradictions which did not affect the credibility of witnesses will not avail the Appellant. For a contradiction to be material or substantial, it must relate to the substance and the vital ingredients of the offence charged. Trivial contradictions should not vitiate a trial.
Therefore, for any touted contradiction to avail an accused person, it must be such that is capable of creating a doubt in the mind of the Court on a material issue at the trial. It must be of such magnitude as to warrant interference by an Appeal Court. –
CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESS – POSITION OF THE LAW ON CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES
“While the law recognizes that contradictions will occur, what the law will not allow are contradictions that are material. Generally, a material contradiction is one which casts serious doubt on the case presented as a whole or on the reliability of the witnesses. It therefore has to be one of real importance to the outcome of the case or of great consequence to same. A superficial contradiction is harmless to a case. Thus, the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that minor inaccuracies and discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses arising from momentary confusion while testifying before a Court, is of no moment as it does not touch on the justice or the substance of the case.
I will therefore cap the current legal position on the place of contradictions in our jurisprudence by referring to the pronouncement of the learned Jurist Nweze, JSC in Emeka Mbachu V State (2018) LPELR-45163(SC) 41-43, C-A:
“The word “contradiction” traces its lexical roots to two Latin words, namely, “contra” and “dictum”, meaning “to say the opposite”, see Ikemson V State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455, 479. Hence testimonies can only be said to be contradictory when they give inconsistent accounts of the same event. That explains why the law takes the view that for contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses to vitiate a decision, they must be material and substantial. That is, such contradictions must be so material to the extent that they cast serious doubts on the case as presented as a whole by the party on whose behalf the witnesses testify, or as to the reliability of such witnesses … This is so because it would be miraculous to find two persons who witnessed an incident giving identical accounts of it when they are called upon to do so at a future date. If that were to happen, such accounts would be treated with suspicion, as it is likely that the witnesses compared notes. In effect, minor variations in testimonies seem to be badges of truth, Okoiziebu V State (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt. 831) 327, 341; Nasaru V State (1999) 6-9 SC 153; Ikemson V State (supra). In any event, Courts have taken the view that witnesses may not always speak of the same facts or events with equal and regimented accuracy, Ogun V Akinyelu (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 362, 392. In all, for contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to affect a conviction, particularly in a capital offence, they must raise doubts as to the guilt of the accused.”
–
OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE – INGREDIENTS A PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO GROUND A CONVICTION IN THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE
“To prove a charge of culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the Penal Code, the prosecution is required to prove by credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt the following ingredients of the offence:
That the deceased died;
That the death of the deceased was caused by the accused; and
That the accused intended to cause death or that he knew that death would be the probable result of his action.
These three ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death pervaded the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court and were proved to the standard demanded by law to wit, beyond reasonable doubt. The time and place of the incident leading to the death of Mohammed Zamari were never in dispute. Therefore, they were not in issue such as would detract from the evidence laid before the trial Court. This is more so that the Appellant never raised a defence of alibi or that he was elsewhere at the time the offence was committed. This is therefore nothing but a mere distraction which does not detract from the fact that the charge was thoroughly proved against the Appellant by overwhelming, consistent and credible eyewitness evidence adduced through PW2, PW3 and PW4 and which the learned trial Court rightly believed and properly acted upon after proper assessment and evaluation. –
CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES – NATURE OF CONTRADICTION THAT WOULD CREATE DOUBT IN FAVOUR OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
“For contradiction to cast a doubt on the prosecution’s case, it must be material going to the substance of the case against the Appellant.
Contradiction that will create a doubt in favour of the Appellant must be vital and must cut at the foundation of the prosecution’s case.
A miniature contradiction cannot affect the prosecution’s case. It must be a contradiction that raises reasonable doubt upon the guilt of the accused person. See Okon Dan Osung Vs The State (2012) 18 NWLR pt 1332 pg 256, Ogidi Vs State (2014) LPELR 1473.
If there are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution, and the contradiction go materially to the charge, doubt will be created and benefit of it must be given the accused person, in which case he will be discharged “Per Belgore JSC. See Orisa Vs State (2018) LPELR 43896. –
CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES – CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES CAN AVAIL THE OPPOSITE PARTY
“The law remains settled that contradictions in the evidence of witnesses can only avail the opposite party where they are material, substantial and affect the live issues in the matter, to the extent that they affect the fortunes of the appeal in favour of the party raising the issue: Usiobaifo vs. Usiobaifo (2005) 181 (Pt. II) 60. See also Dagayya vs. State (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 980) 637. –
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended)|
Penal Code|