LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Contradictions – Materiality Required to Affect Conviction
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is trite law that for a contradiction to be essential and affect the decision of a trial court such contradictions must be material and fundamental in the determination of the guilt of the accused. The contradictions must create doubt in the mind of the court to such a degree that the court believes that the doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Mohammed, JSC, in Awopejo & Ors v. State (2001) NLC-2782000(SC) at pp. 9–10; Paras E–A.
"It is trite law that for a contradiction to be essential and affect the decision of a trial court such contradictions must be material and fundamental in the determination of the guilt of the accused. The contradictions must create doubt in the mind of the court to such a degree that the court believes that the doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Only material and fundamental contradictions affect a conviction—minor or trivial contradictions do not. The contradiction must create reasonable doubt in the court’s mind to such a degree that the doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused. Not every inconsistency undermines the prosecution’s case. The court examines whether the contradiction goes to an essential element of the offence. If the contradiction is collateral or minor, the court may still convict. The principle prevents acquittal based on inconsequential inconsistencies. The prosecution is not required to present perfectly consistent evidence. The court evaluates the totality of evidence. Materiality is determined by the impact on the case’s core.