EVIDENCE LAW — Contradictions — Material Contradiction vs. Mere Discrepancy — Minor Inconsistencies Not Fatal to Prosecution
Ratio Decidendi
Per Kastina-Alu, JSC, in Dibie v. State (2007) NLC-123-103-2005(SC) at p. 10; Paras B–D:
"A material contradiction must go to a material point in the prosecution's case, as to create doubt in the case that the appellant is entitled to benefit from. … Both courts held that the alleged contradictions were mere discrepancies that were trivial in nature and did not go to the root of the charge against the appellants."
Explanation / Scope
Not every inconsistency in evidence amounts to a material contradiction. A material contradiction goes to the root of the case and creates reasonable doubt. Minor discrepancies, such as differences in dates or details that do not affect the core facts, are not fatal. Courts will disregard trivial inconsistencies and focus on the substance of the evidence.