the investigating police officer (ipo)

IPO is acronym for the Investigation Police Officer. He is the one who investigates any alleged offence or any crime reported to him. He interrogates the suspects and takes down their statements; He visits the locus in quo for further investigation where that is necessary. He interviews the suspects and investigates Alibi. The IPO is usually not an eye witness to the crime.

The job of the investigating police officer (IPO) is to investigate the reported commission of crime and come to court to testify as to the form and outcome of his investigations. See AKINBAMI V. STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT 897) 2018.

That will depend on the nature of the offence and the role he played, and whether there are other witnesses called whose testimonies could make his evidence in the trial not indispensable. If there are no such other witnesses to close the evidential gap his absence might create, then the case may fail for failure to properly put in a necessary evidence. Otherwise, No, the absence of the investigating police officer would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution and the prosecution can secure a conviction even on a simple vital witness. Where there is a cogent reason for the absence of the IPO, his presence in the criminal trial can be dispensed with and it will not affect the case of the prosecution. **See OKEJERE V. STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT 866) 386 CA; ARCHIBONG V. STATE (2006) ALL FWLR (PT.323) 1747; OLUMUYIWA V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR **

Generally, the law does not impose on the prosecution the duty to call any particular witness. However the prosecution must call any material witness necessary to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the IPO in several of the cases is in a position of Material Witness. It is therefore very necessary and indeed very important for the IPO to be called as a prosecution witness in the criminal trial of the case he investigated. See AKINBAMI V. STATE (2017) ALL FWLR (PT 897) 2018. But where the Court is satisfied with the prosecution excuse or explanation of the absence of the IPO, his signed statement may be allowed by the court to be admitted in his absence. Also, where the IPO worked with other colleagues as a Team that carried out the investigation, any other member of that Team may, in absence of the Head of the Investigation Team, may tender a statement signed by the Team leader, again, with reasonable excuse given for the inability of the Team leader to attend court and personally tender the statement. **OLUMUYIWA V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR **