LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Contradictions — Materiality — When Contradictions Fatal to Prosecution Case
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
For a contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to be fatal, it must be material, substantial, and fundamental to the main issues, creating doubt that the accused is entitled to benefit from. Minor contradictions that raise no doubt are not fatal.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Princent & Anor v. State (2002) NLC-1582001(SC) at p. 19; Paras A–D.
"The law is firmly settled that for any conflict or contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to be fatal to its case, such conflict or contradiction must be material, substantial and fundamental to the main issues in controversy between the parties before the court thus creating some doubt that the accused is entitled to benefit from. Where conflict or contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses raise no doubts as to the guilt of the accused, the only duty of the trial Judge is to observe and comment on them as such and no more. Such contradictions are not fatal to the prosecution's case."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Not all contradictions are fatal. Only material, substantial, and fundamental contradictions that create doubt about the accused’s guilt are fatal. Minor or trivial contradictions are not fatal. The trial judge must comment on them but may still convict if satisfied of guilt. The principle applies the harmless error doctrine. The appellant must show that the contradiction affected the substance of the case. The court examines whether the contradiction goes to an essential element. The rule prevents acquittal based on minor inconsistencies. The judge must distinguish between material and immaterial contradictions. The principle promotes justice over technicality.