Ratio Decidendi

Per O.O. Adekeye, JSC, in Afolalu v. State (2010) NLC-123-193-2008(SC) at p. 16, para. C – p. 17, para. A:

"Identification parade is not obligatory, where there is good and cogent evidence linking the accused person to the crime on the day of the incident a formal identification parade may be unnecessary. Identification parade is not sine qua non to a conviction for a crime alleged, it is only essential in the following instances: (a) Where the victim did not know the accused before and his first acquaintance with him was during the commission of the offence; (b) Where the victim or witness was confronted by the offender for a very short time; and (c) Where the victim due to time and circumstance might not have had the full opportunity of observing the features of the accused."
View Judgment →

Explanation / Scope

This principle establishes that an identification parade is not mandatory where there is good and cogent evidence linking the accused to the crime. The principle applies where identification evidence is in issue. It ensures that identification parades are not required where other evidence suffices. The principle reflects that identification parades are only essential where the witness did not know the accused or had limited opportunity to observe. It prevents unnecessary parades. The court must assess the evidence. The principle provides guidance on when identification parades are necessary.

Cases Applying This Principle

Olayinka Afolalu v. The State