CRIMINAL LAW — Prosecution Case — Conflicting Evidence — Effect of Material Contradictions
Principle Statement
Where one witness called by the prosecution in a criminal case contradicts another prosecution witness on a material point, the prosecution ought to lay some foundation, such as showing that the witness is hostile, before they can ask the court to reject the testimony of one witness and accept that of another witness in preference for the evidence of the discredited witness. It is not competent for the prosecution which called them to pick and choose between them. They cannot, without showing clearly that one is a hostile witness, discredit one and accredit the other.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Fatayi-Williams, JSC (as he then was), in Onubogu v. Queen (1974) 9 SC 1 at 20, cited in Udosen v. State (2007) NLC-123-199-2005(SC) at p. 10; Paras A–E.
"Where one witness called by the prosecution in a criminal case contradicts another prosecution witness on a material point, the prosecution ought to lay some foundation, such as showing that the witness is hostile, before they can ask the court to reject the testimony of one witness and accept that of another witness in preference for the evidence of the discredited witness. It is not competent for the prosecution which called them to pick and choose between them. They cannot, without showing clearly that one is a hostile witness, discredit one and accredit the other."
Explanation / Scope
This principle prohibits the prosecution from picking and choosing between contradictory evidence from its own witnesses. Where prosecution witnesses materially contradict each other, the prosecution must lay a foundation—such as declaring a witness hostile—before asking the court to reject one and accept the other. The prosecution cannot arbitrarily select which testimony to believe. The principle ensures the prosecution presents a coherent case. It applies in criminal trials where multiple prosecution witnesses give conflicting evidence. The court must consider the contradictions. The principle prevents unfairness to the accused. Where contradictions are material and unresolved, the prosecution’s case may be fatally weakened.
