Defence Of Alibi

Alibi is a form of defence used in criminal pro
cedure wherein the accused attempts to prove that he or she was in some other place at the time the alleged offence was committed. It is usually based on the premise that the defendant is innocent. In Latin language “Alibi” means somewhere else”. The plea of alibi has acquired a prominent place in criminal law trials, and its also a settled law that the defense of alibi raised by an accused is to be proved by balance of probability. In Jimoh Abdullahi & Ors V. State (1985) 41 LAW/SC III one Abas Akofe’s dead body was found by the road side on the 21st day of October 1988. The matter was reported to the Police and investigations got underway. In trying to find out the killers of Akofe, the clan Chief summoned a clan meeting on the day of the incident, but no one mentioned any name as being responsible for the killing at the meeting. Two people who where later called by the prosecution as eye witnesses to the killing attended that meeting, but did not mention any name at the meeting. These persons gave evidence as P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 as the source, that  it was the appellants who killed Abas Akofe and they were arrested and charged for the murder. The prosecution called witnesses, while each of the appellants gave evidence on oath and called witnesses. The 3rd and 4th appellant set up the defense of alibi at the on set of the investigation by the parties but the alibi was not investigated by the police.
But if an alibi is not investigated and rebutted by the prosecution, it creates a doubt that such an offence could have been committed by the accused person (see Ozaki V. State (1990) 1 NWLR (pt 124) 92 at 109).
In a situation where an accused person has disclosed an alibi before his trial, and the prosecution has taken no step to verify or disprove the defense, the court may hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This is because the failure by the police to investigate and check the reliability of an alibi properly and Timorously would raise reasonable doubt in the mind of the court and must in an appropriate case head to the quashing of a conviction imposed in disregard of their requirement. see Onafowo Kan V. State (1987) 3 NWLR (pt 61) 538. Where an accused person did not raise the defense of alibi before his trial, but in his evidence at the trial, the prosecution would naturally not be obliged at such a plea and would be entitled to rely on the evidence of its witnesses to disprove the alibi. Where the prosecution adduces sufficient, accepted and credible evidence to fix the accused at the scene of the crime at the material time, the plea of alibi would logically be demolished.
Even where the prosecution fails to investigate an alibi, which does not necessarily becomes fatal in every case, the trial court has a duty to consider the credibility of the evidence adduced by the prosecution vis a vis the alibi. (Onyebu V State (1995) 4 NWLR (pt 391) 510.

Nkechi Bright Ewere