Plea Of Alibi

The word “Alibi” simply means elsewhere. It is a defence based on the balance of probabilities. When an accused raises  the defence of Alibi, all he needs to do is to introduce evidence or facts leading to that conclusion. Once an Alibi has been raised, the burden is on the prosecution to investigate and rebut such evidence in order to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Also, it is a settled principle of our law that the burden of proof in criminal cases does  not shift, it lies throughout the trial on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused person. Even more so the onus does not shift to the accused to establish any defence. See Onugbogu v. the State (1974) 9 S.C.I.
The plea of Alibi seeks to persuade the court that the accused could not possibly be at the scene of the crime as he was somewhere else. At a place where must probably there were people who could testify that at the time of the alleged incident or act, he was not at the scene of the crime. The Supreme Court affirms in Gachi V. The state (1965) N. M. L. R 333 at 335, that “The word Alibi means “elsewhere” and since it is a matter peculiarly with the knowledge of an accused person, the accused is expected to raise it timorously and probably have people who could testify that at the time of the  alleged incident or act, he was not at the scene of the crime. Where the prosecution fails to investigate an ‘Alibi’ timeously raised, the court will be right to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In Iheonunekwu Ndukwe V. The State (2009) 2-3 SC Pg 7, the Supreme Court per Mohammed stated as follows: “It is not enough for the accused person to say to the court that he was not at a particular place, away from the scene of the crime. That he has to prove his assertion. That even if the police have failed to investigate such assertion, the accused person, has the onus of adducing evidence on which he relies for his defence of ‘Alibi’. See Yanor and Anor. V. The State (1965) NMLR 337. It can be seen that failure of the police to investigate, does not, automatically, means failure of the prosecution’s case. There is a rider which places such onus, on the accused person on the balance of probability. See Ime David Idiok V. The State (2008) 13 NWLR Pt 1104 Pg 223″.
In sum, what the above means is that where the accused raises the defence of ‘Alibi’ and it is not investigated, he can still be convicted if there is a strong and credible evidence before the court. For a plea of ‘Alibi’ to be successful, the defence must show inter-alia as established in the case of Lhodigwe V. State (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt 1331) I S. C that:
1.    The accused person was so separated by distance from the scene of the crime that ordinarily he could not have travelled from where he alleged he was to the scene of the crime.
2.    Though the accused was within a short distance to the scene of the crime, he was physically prevented from approaching the scene of the crime by an external force or ill health as certified by a medical doctor.
Where successfully made, the defence of ‘Alibi’ is a complete defence, which has the capacity to totally exonerate an accused person from the charge preferred against him.

Nkechi Bright Ewere