LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Witness Credibility – Material Contradictions and Inconsistencies – Effect
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the sole eyewitness and no cogent reasons are given, it is not sufficient for the trial judge to merely state that he has no reasonable doubt; he must state clearly and in detail the conclusion reached.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Dogo & Ors v. State (2001) NLC-442000(SC) at pp. 20–21; Paras E–A.
"Where there are material or substantial inconsistencies and conflictions in the evidence of a witness, the purported only eye witness to the incident and no cogent reasons for the inconsistencies and conflictions are given, it is not sufficient for a trial Judge to state that he has no reasonable doubt whatever as to the guilt of the accused; he should state clearly and in detail the conclusion reached."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When material contradictions exist in the sole eyewitness’s evidence, the trial judge must do more than state that he has no reasonable doubt. He must clearly and in detail explain how he resolved the contradictions and why he still believes the witness. Mere assertion of no doubt is insufficient. The judge must provide reasoned analysis. The principle ensures that convictions are based on careful evaluation, not mere impression. The appellate court can review whether the judge properly considered the inconsistencies. If no cogent explanation is given, the conviction may be unsafe. The rule promotes transparency and accountability in judicial reasoning.