alibi

There is a duty on the Police to investigate the whereabouts of a suspect who says he was elsewhere when a crime was committed. However, it is not in all cases that the prosecution would mandatorily need to conduct a separate investigation. Where the prosecution has proof that the defendant is raising the Alibi wrongfully and calls strong evidence in proof of same, there will not be any need for investigation. OLAIYA V. STATE [2010] ALL FWLR (PT.514) 1. AGU V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR; WISDOM V. THE STATE (2017) HELAR.

When a defendant claims not to be guilty of an offence on the basis that at the time the offence was committed, he was at another place, he has raised the defence of ALIBI. The defence of Alibi must be raised at the earliest opportunity, that is, at the police station, when he is being asked under caution to make his statement. He must state in clear terms such details as the time, the day and address of where he was when the police alleged that he committed the offence. AZEEZ V. STATE [2008] ALL FWLR (PT. 424) 1423. AGU V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR; WISDOM V. THE STATE (2017) HELAR; AKINSUWA V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR

It is not enough for the defendant to merely raise and seek to rely on Alibi. He must strengthen the defence by calling witnesses to support his case that he was not at the scene of crime but somewhere else.

Accordingly, the onus is not on the defendant to establish Alibi to the satisfaction of the Court, but for the prosecution to disprove it. If the prosecution is able to produce sufficient accepted evidence to fix the defendant at the scene of crime, the defence of Alibi will automatically die. YANOR V. STATE (1965) NMLR 337; OSUAGWU V. STATE [2013] ALL FWLR (PT.672) 605. IBRAHIM V C.O.P (2020) HELAR