LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Contradictions in Evidence – When Contradictions in Evidence Is Material
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A contradiction between shoe and slippers is not fundamental so as to affect the identity of the appellant based on the totality of the evidence. What the appellant wore on his feet, be it shoes or slippers, does not amount to a material contradiction.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Idrisu Ahmed v. The State (1998) NLC-31998(SC) at P. 21; Paras B–D.
"The contradiction between shoe and slippers is not fundamental as to affect the identity of the appellant based on the totality of the evidence adduced. … whatever appellant wore on his feet that day, be it shoes or slippers, could not amount to a material contradiction."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Not all contradictions are material. Minor inconsistencies do not affect the case. The principle applies to criminal trials. The court must distinguish material from immaterial contradictions. The rule prevents acquittal on technicalities. The judge must evaluate the totality of evidence. The principle promotes justice over technicality.