Daily, crimes are committed. In some instances, the criminals being at the locus delicti (place of the crime) could last long while in some instances, before one could say, Jack Robinson, the whole operation has been concluded.
In the second limp of the foregoing where the operation happened so fast, and some accused persons were apprehended, there is usually the need for the police to either invite the victim or witnesses, as the case may be, to identify the perpetrator(s) of the crime. And it is at this stage where identification parade comes in.
An identification parade is an identification procedure of the police, in which a criminal suspect and other physically similar persons are shown to the victim or witness to determine whether the suspect can be identified as the perpetrator or one of the perpetrators of the crime without assistance.
Otherwise known as line up, it is used whenever there is doubt as to the ability of a witness/victim to recognize the suspect/accused who participated in carrying out the crime or where the identity of the said suspect or accused person is in dispute. This normally arises where the person who commits the offence was not arrested at the scene of the crime and has not been known by the victim or any other witness previously and the victims or witness encounter with the suspect was only in the course of the commission of the offence.
Though not statutorily provided for in the Criminal and Penal Code, it is a term that has gained prominence through judicial pronouncements in Criminal Jurisprudence. See the cases: Alufohai v The State (2015) 3 NWLR (PT. 1445) 172; Ogoala v The State (1991) LPELR – 2307 (SC) @ 13 A – B; Bamaiyi v The State & Ors (2001) LPELR – 731, Seun v State (2019) LPELR-SC.601/2016 etc.
Furthermore, as held in Tajudeen Alabi v The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 307) 511, an identification parade will be necessary only in the following circumstances:
(a) Where the victim or witness did not know the accused before and the first acquaintance with him is during the commission of the offence;
(b) Where the victim or witness was confronted by the suspect for a very short time; and
(c) Where the victim or witness, due to time and circumstance might not have had the opportunity of observing the features of the accused.
However, it is not in every situation that an identification parade is necessary. It is unnecessary:
(a) where there is a clear and uncontradicted eye witness account of the identity of the person who allegedly committed the crime.
(b) where a witness or the victim knew the suspect prior to the commission of the offence and has recognized him at the time of the commission of the offence
(c) where there is convincing, cogent, and compelling evidence linking the suspect to the offence. See the cases of: Adebayo v State (2014) LPELR- 22988 (SC), Moses Jua v State (2010) 4 NWLR (PT. 1154) 217 SC etc.
The success or otherwise of this procedural doctrine is determined by the circumstances of each case. In Seun v State (Supra), the appellant and two others were arrested on 15 September 2012 in an uncompleted building close to the house of Hon Justice Agbelusi Micheal Ayowole of the High Court of Justice, Ekiti State who was the victim of armed robbery which took place around 3 am on the same date.
After the robbery, he reported to the Police who made an arrest in the uncompleted building. Immediately the police invited the victim over, he pointed at the appellant and two others seated on the bench in the Police Station, New lyin Road, Ado Ekiti as those who robbed him. During the identification parade, he maintained his stance that the 2nd man(now appellant) was one of those who robbed him. He gave evidence that the appellant was dark in complexion, charcoal black, and wore no mask.
Giving the judgment, the court held that it is not even necessary to conduct an identification parade. In this case, PW1, the victim of the robbery, recognized the three accused persons at the Police Station, a few hours after the robbery incident when it was still fresh in his mind and the robbers were still in the neighbourhood when they were apprehended.
The court was guided by the precedent in Ukpabi v. State (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 884) 439 where Uwaifo JSC(as he then was) stated at page 450 that identification parade is not necessary where the witness recognized one of those who robbed him while the matter was still fresh in his mind and the man was still in the neigbourhood and within easy reach, the court held that what happened.
Similarly in Ugwu v State (the case under review), about 9pm on the 26th day of May 2002, some men with guns invaded the official residence of Mr. Christopher Ogbonna, the Chief Security Officer of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka at Nsukka Elias Avenue, University of Nigeria, Nsukka campus. The said men held Mrs. Ogbonna wife of the deceased, and her children hostage. They seized some of their properties including money. They raped two daughters of the deceased and killed Mr. Ogbonna and later escaped from the house.
On the record and from the evidence available, PW1, the son of the deceased, testified that he had known the appellant a long time ago and had met him from time to time on several occasions and at several places before the incident in their house. Also, the evidence showed that the confrontation with the appellant by PW1 was prolonged and they were face to face, in the full glare of electricity light before PW1 was ordered to put the light off. The Supreme held that given the circumstances of this case, there was no need for an identification parade to further identify him.
The Supreme Court further held that where an identification parade is unnecessary and if the one conducted was faulty, it should not affect the finding made at the court of first instance. Seun v State (Supra).
Thank you for reading. See you next week❤.
THELEGALSTANDPOINT 