LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Identification – Omission to Mention Name at Earliest Opportunity
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where an eye-witness omits to mention at the earliest opportunity the names of persons she saw committing an offence, a trial court must be careful and wary in accepting her evidence given later which implicates the person charged, unless a satisfactory explanation is given.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Achike, JSC, in Ebre & Ors v. State (2001) NLC-591999(SC) at p. 6; Paras A–C.
"Where an eye-witness omits to mention at the earliest opportunity the names of persons she saw committing an offence, a trial court must be careful and wary in accepting her evidence given later which implicates the person charged, unless a satisfactory explanation is given."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
If an eyewitness fails to mention the accused’s name at the earliest opportunity but later implicates them, the court must be careful and wary. A satisfactory explanation for the omission is required. The delay may indicate fabrication, mistake, or coaching. The principle protects against delayed identification designed to frame an innocent person. The court examines whether the witness had opportunity to observe, knew the accused before, and why the name was not disclosed earlier. The omission weakens the prosecution’s case. The court may require corroboration. The principle applies to both police statements and trial testimony. Without satisfactory explanation, the identification evidence may be rejected.