CRIMINAL LAW — Defences — Alibi — When Failure to Investigate Does Not Fatal Prosecution Case
Ratio Decidendi
Per Supreme Court (as adopted by Mohammed, JSC), in Hemyo Ntam & Anor v. The State (1968) NMLR 86 at 87; cited in Olaiya v. State (2010) NLC-123-36-2009(SC) at p. 6, para. E – p. 7, para. A:
"There are occasions on which a failure to check an alibi may cast doubt on the reliability of the case for the prosecution, but in a case such as this where the Appellants were identified by three eye witnesses there was a straight issue of credibility and we are not able to say that the judge's findings of facts were unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. If the alibi had been true it would have been open to the Appellant to call witnesses in support of them and neither of them did so."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that while failure to investigate an alibi may cast doubt on the prosecution’s case, it does not automatically render the prosecution’s case fatal. Where the accused is identified by credible eye witnesses, the failure to investigate alibi does not undermine the conviction if the alibi could have been supported by witnesses but none were called. The principle applies where alibi is raised and not investigated. It ensures that alibi is assessed on the evidence. The principle reflects that the accused bears the burden of supporting alibi. It prevents accused persons from benefiting from unsupported alibi. The court must assess the totality of evidence. The principle provides guidance on the effect of failure to investigate alibi.