LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence — Materiality Test
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Not every discrepancy or contradiction in the prosecution's case entitles an accused to acquittal; only contradictions on material points that create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case will benefit the accused.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Ahmed v. State (2001) NLC-271999(SC) at p. 21; Paras C–D.
"It is not in all cases where there are discrepancies or contradictions in the case of the prosecution that an accused person will be entitled to an acquittal. It is only when such discrepancies or contradictions are on a material point or points in the prosecution's case that they create some doubt in its case that the accused is entitled to benefit therefrom."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Minor or immaterial contradictions do not entitle the accused to acquittal. Only contradictions on material points that create reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case benefit the accused. The court must distinguish between substantial and trivial inconsistencies. The principle prevents acquittal based on minor discrepancies that do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case. The court examines whether the contradiction goes to an essential element of the offence. If the contradiction is resolved or explained, it may not create doubt. The rule applies to both oral and documentary evidence. The judge must evaluate the significance of the contradiction. The principle ensures that justice is not defeated by technicalities.
