identification parade

The need to conduct an identification parade only arises or become necessary in the following circumstances: a. The accused was not arrested at the scene of the crime and he denies taking part in the crime. b. The victim did not know the accused before the date of the commission of the crime. c. The victim was confronted by the accused for a very short time. d. The victim due to time and circumstance must not have had full opportunity of properly observing the certain essential features of the accused; e. Where there is real doubt as to who was seen in connection with the offence. AYOBAMI V. STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT 886) 1769; Aliu v. State (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt.1368) 403; NWATUROCHA V. STATE (2011) LPELR- 8119; NKIDI V. STATE (2007) All FWLR (Pt.381) 1817; OROK V. STATE (2010) All FWLR (Pt.532) 1732; SALAU V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR

Identification parade is usually necessary when the legal and factual nexus between the crime and the suspect is in doubt. Thus, where the suspect is well linked to the offence, where the suspect is pinned to the scene of the crime, there will be no need for any identification parade to be conducted. For example, where the suspect was caught at the venue of crime, committing the offence or the suspect is well known by the victim or witnesses before the date of the commission of the crime, or the suspect himself has admitted and confessed to the commission of the offence TOSIN V. STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT 916) 1468; IKEMSON V. STATE (1989) 3 NWLR 3 NWLR (PT.110); ADISA V. STATE(1991) 1 NWLR (PT.168) 490; USUNG V. STATE (2009) ALL FWLR (PT.462) 1203 OLASEHINDE V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR; OLUMUYIWA V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR

Identification parade, also in police parlance referred to as ‘line up’ is a police or any other security investigating body identification procedure wherein a criminal suspect and other physically similar persons are shown to the victim or a witness to determine whether the victim/witness can identify the alleged perpetrator of the crime among those so lined up. See Ayobami V. State (2017) ALL FWLR (PT 886) 1764; Ewugba Vs. State (2017) Helar; Salau Vs. The State (2019) Helar

Identification parade ought to be conducted during investigation, that is, before the commencement of trial. An eye-witness or a victim must mention names or give detailed description that would properly link the names to persons before trial. This is because any identification done later-on in the proceeding will operate to reduce the truth content or credibility of the evidence below acceptable probative standard. See UDO V. STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT 873) 1758. Abdulkadir Vs. The State (2019) Helar The best identification is the one made promptly by the victims of the crime or by those who witnessed the crime at that point in time. Any identification made afterwards will not have same strong effect as that done immediately after the commission of the crime. See OKEJERE V. STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT 866) 386 CA; ADAMU & ORS V. STATE (1991) 4 NWLR (PT.187) 530

The proper way to conduct an identification parade is to mix the suspect with sufficient number of other persons with similar features and characteristics and have the victim or witness to pick out the particular suspect linked with the commission of the crime. In an identification parade where the defendants were the only persons on parade to be identified, the trial court cannot safely rely on the evidence to convict them. See AYOBAMI V. STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT 886) 1769; BOZIN V. STATE (1985) 2 NWLR (PT.8) 365; ABDULKADIR V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR