PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

It is trite law that in a criminal trial, any defence raised by an accused person must be considered however slight. It is also settled law that any defence to which an accused person is on the evidence entitled to, should be considered however stupid or unreasonable.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Kalgo, JSC, in Oforlete v. State (2000) NLC-1771999(SC) at p. 4; Paras B–C.
"It is trite law that in a criminal trial, any defence raised by an accused person must be considered however slight. It is also settled law that any defence to which an accused person is on the evidence entitled to, should be considered however stupid or unreasonable."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Every defence raised by an accused must be considered by the court, no matter how slight, stupid, or unreasonable it may appear. The court cannot dismiss a defence without proper evaluation. Even weak defences may raise reasonable doubt when considered alongside prosecution evidence. The right to fair hearing requires that all defences receive judicial attention. The court must assess whether the defence, if believed, could create doubt. Dismissing a defence without consideration violates the accused’s rights. The principle ensures that no potentially meritorious defence is overlooked due to judicial impatience or prejudice.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE