LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW – Defence of Alibi – Effect of Positive Identification
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The trial court had no problem in doing so because it believed the testimonies of PW2, PW3 and PW4 in which each of the appellants was identified at the scene of the crime and the role each played in attacking the deceased. The testimonies of those witnesses are convincing enough to help the court in reaching a conclusion that the defence of alibi was unsubstantiated.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Mohammed, JSC, in Awopejo & Ors v. State (2001) NLC-2782000(SC) at p. 10; Paras B–C.
"The trial court had no problem in doing so because it believed the testimonies of PW2, PW3 and PW4 in which each of the appellants was identified at the scene of the crime and the role each played in attacking the deceased. The testimonies of those witnesses are convincing enough to help the court in reaching a conclusion that the defence of alibi was unsubstantiated."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Positive identification of the accused at the scene of the crime destroys the defence of alibi. If credible eyewitnesses identify the accused and describe their role, the alibi defence becomes unsubstantiated. The court must believe the identification evidence for this to operate. The alibi defence cannot coexist with credible evidence placing the accused at the scene. The principle is straightforward: a person cannot be in two places at once. If the prosecution proves presence at the scene, the alibi fails. The court weighs the credibility of identification witnesses against the alibi evidence. Positive identification from credible witnesses is sufficient to reject alibi.