CRIMINAL LAW — Defences — Alibi — Effect of Positive Identification on Defence of Alibi
Ratio Decidendi
Per Onu, JSC (as adopted by Mohammed, JSC), in Michael Hause v. The State (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt.350) 281 at pp. 301–302; cited in Olaiya v. State (2010) NLC-123-36-2009(SC) at p. 7, paras. C–D:
"Thus once the prosecution through its witnesses establish that they (the witnesses) saw the Appellant committing the offence charged, a defence of alibi by the appellant raises a straight issue of credibility to wit; whether the evidence of the witnesses is believable and if believed, the alibi raised is logically demolished or fizzles into thin air and so doomed."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that once prosecution witnesses testify that they saw the accused commit the offence, the defence of alibi raises a straight issue of credibility. If the witnesses are believed, the alibi is demolished. The principle applies where alibi is raised. It ensures that alibi is weighed against identification evidence. The principle reflects that positive identification defeats alibi. It prevents alibi from being a magic wand. The court must assess the credibility of the witnesses. The principle provides guidance on the effect of positive identification on alibi.