Day: July 27, 2023

During my childhood, I used to go out to play with my friends, often returning late in the evening. On one occasion when I arrived home, I was informed that something spoiled at home. When questioned about who was responsible, I quickly exclaimed, “I wasn’t there o!” This particular incident reinforced the joy of playing outside, knowing I couldn’t be accused of being the culprit. I was so sure of myself🤭

Upon commencing my studies in criminal law at the university, I discovered that the familiar phrase from my childhood, “I wasn’t there o,” actually corresponds to a legal defense known as an “alibi.” This week’s article will delve into the fundamental aspects of this defense in criminal law.

Etymologically, the term “alibi” has its origins in Latin. It comes from the Latin phrase “alibi,” which means “elsewhere.” The term is a combination of two Latin words: “alius” (meaning “other” or “else”) and “ibi” (meaning “there”).

It’s a criminal defence which places the accused person, at the time the offence was committed, in a different place other than the place of the crime which therefore makes it impossible for the accused to be the culprit. The defence hinges on the natural principle of life that a person can’t be in two places at the same time.

Alibi is also a radical defence. It’s radical in that unlike every other defence in law where the accused admits that he commits the offence and goes on to provide an explanation to mitigate the punishment, for instance, “he killed him because he slapped him” (provocation), alibi is the only defence where the accused still maintains his position that he didn’t commit the crime at all. This radical nature of the alibi defense arises from its fundamental contradiction to the standard approach of admitting guilt while seeking to justify or lessen the severity of the act committed.

Though this defence is not statutorily provided for, that is, it is not contained in the Criminal Code nor does the Penal Code make provision for it, nevertheless it’s a defence that has gained notoriety due to a plethora of judicial decisions. See the following cases: Yanor v. State (1965) NMLR 337; Smart v State (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1518) 447 SC; Ndidi v State (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1052) 633 S.C etc and a recent 2023 case of State v Aliyu (2023) 6 NWLR (Pt.1881).

Moving on, it’s pertinent to state that the defence of an alibi must be raised timeously preferably during the time of arrest or interrogation as the courts frown on belated alibis. The reason why the courts have insisted that the Police must investigate an alibi given timeously by the defendant is to close all loopholes in a criminal investigation and to avoid a situation in which the wrong person is sent to the gallows as a result of mistaken identity. Ani v. State (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt.1168) 475.

And it is not just enough to say “I was not there“; the accused must go on to provide a detailed particularization of his whereabouts including the specific place he went to, the people in whose company he was and what if anything transpired at the said time and place. By providing detailed particulars, it prevents the police from embarking on wild goose chase.

In Kareem v State (2021) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1806) 503 S.C, the court held that: “An accused person must raise his Alibi at the earliest opportunity, preferably in his extra-judicial statement. He must not be allowed to use Alibi as a trump card to scuttle prosecution. This is to offer the Police an opportunity either to confirm or confute its availability to the accused person.”

As such in Oguno v State, the court rejected the defence of Alibi raised for the first time in trial and in Adeyemi v State, an alibi raised for the first time while in the witness box was also rejected.

Furthermore, it is a settled principle in the criminal justice system of Nigeria, that in all criminal trials, the burden of proof lies solely on the prosecution, which he must prove beyond reasonable doubt. Section 135 of the Evidence Act.

Once a defence of alibi has been promptly and properly put up, the burden is on the prosecution to investigate it and rebut such evidence in order to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The onus on the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt never shifts and there is no onus on the accused to prove the alibi beyond that of introducing the evidence of alibi. Yanor v State. (supra).

The law is that it is in the interest of justice that the police should investigate an alibi and failure to do such may be fatal to the case. Where an alibi is not investigated, it goes to the root of the case of the prosecution because doubt is thrown on the identity of the perpetrator of the crime who may not be the defendant in the dock. Ayan v. State (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1376) 34 S.C.

However, the law also creates an exception which is that where there is positive evidence that places the accused at the screen of the crime, the failure to investigate the Alibi would not be fatal to conviction. In State v Aliyu (Supra), the court held that that “Where the prosecution is able to adduce evidence which positively fixes the accused person to the scene of the crime and which leaves no one in doubt that the accused person was at the scene at the time when the offence was committed, there will be no need to investigate the alibi, as it is logically demolished.”

Finally, the successful plea of this defence will lead to the discharge and acquittal of the accused because alibi is an exculpatory defence.

Thank you for reading❤️. See you next week🙏