LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW — Armed Robbery — Identification — Contradictions in Evidence — When Material to Conviction
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Contradictions that do not affect the substance of the issue to be decided are irrelevant; contradictions must substantially disparage the witness to make it unsafe to rely on them.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Isibor v. State (2002) NLC-2462001(SC) at pp. 4–5; Paras D–A.
"It is well established that contradictions which do not affect the substance of the issue to be decided are irrelevant. The contradictions must be shown to amount to a substantial disparagement of the witness or witnesses concerned, making it unsafe to rely on such witness or witnesses."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Not all contradictions warrant acquittal. Only contradictions that go to the substance of the issue and substantially disparage the witness’s credibility matter. Minor or trivial inconsistencies are irrelevant. The court examines whether the contradiction affects the core of the prosecution’s case. The principle prevents acquittal based on minor discrepancies. The appellant must show that the contradiction creates reasonable doubt. The rule applies to both criminal and civil cases. The court may ignore contradictions that do not affect the outcome. The judge must distinguish between material and immaterial inconsistencies. The principle promotes justice over technicality.