Credibility of an Alibi Witness

The credibility of an alibi witness plays a crucial role in the adjudication of criminal cases where the plea of Alibi is raised by a person accused of committing a crime within the criminal justice system. An Alibi serves as a vital defence strategy, asserting that an accused person was elsewhere at the time the alleged crime was committed, thereby negating their involvement. This article explores the significance of alibi witnesses in Nigerian law, examining the legal principles governing their credibility and the implications of their testimonies. It examines relevant sections of statutes and case law as it relates to the defence of alibi. By reviewing landmark cases, the article highlights the factors influencing the assessment of witness credibility, including consistency of testimony, corroborative evidence, and opportunities for observation. Additionally, it addresses the challenges faced in evaluating alibi witnesses and emphasizes the prosecution’s duty to investigate alibi claims thoroughly. Ultimately, this article underscores the essential role that credible alibi witnesses play in the pursuit of justice, ensuring that the rights of the accused are upheld in the Nigerian judicial system.

Keywords: Alibi, Witness Credibility, Nigerian law, Evidence, Criminal Defence.

Introduction

In the realm of criminal law, the term “alibi” refers to a legal defence strategy employed by an accused person asserting that they were somewhere else when the crime in question was committed. The word “alibi,” which is a Latin word meaning “elsewhere”, signifies that the accused could not have participated in the alleged offence due to their presence in a different location at the time the offence was committed. This defence is not merely a claim; it is an assertion that requires substantiation through credible evidence, typically provided by witness(es) who can confirm the accused’s whereabouts as at the time the crime was committed.

Central to the success of an alibi defence is the credibility of the alibi witness, that is the individual(s) who corroborates the defendant’s whereabouts.  These witnesses play a pivotal role in establishing the legitimacy of an alibi defence, as their testimonies can corroborate the narrative that the accused was not present at the crime scene at the time the offence was committed. A credible alibi witness can significantly enhance the chances of the accused achieving an acquittal, as their testimony can create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury or judge regarding the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the credibility of these witnesses is crucial; their statements must be consistent, reliable, and supported by corroborative evidence to hold weight in court.

Under the Nigerian legal framework, although there isn’t any statute that specifically mentions the word, ‘alibi’, Section 36(6)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria grants an accused person a right to legal representation and to call witnesses in defence of his case (alibi witnesses inclusive). The Nigerian Criminal Code equally does not mention the word ‘alibi’, however, it recognizes the right of an accused person to raise any lawful defence in support of his case and coupled with the fact that under the Criminal Code, there is a presumption of innocence by the law on the part of the accused person until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

Going by these provisions, it can be safely said that the defence of alibi which emanated from English common law is one of the recognized defences an accused person can raise in defence of his case. Once an accused person presents an alibi, the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove the claim. This principle emphasizes the necessity for the prosecution to conduct thorough investigations regarding the alibi presented, thereby ensuring that the rights of the accused are respected. Furthermore, Nigerian case law has established that failure to adequately investigate an alibi can undermine the prosecution’s case, leading to potential acquittal for the accused based on the lack of evidence linking them to the crime. In Ozaki v. The State, the Supreme Court stated that an un-investigated alibi, particularly when properly raised, casts doubt on the prosecution’s case and that such doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused.

Overall, this paper aims to explore the multifaceted nature of alibi witness’ credibility by examining the factors that influence how their testimony is perceived by juries and judges. Understanding these factors is crucial for both prosecution and defence in building or challenging a case and for ensuring fair judicial outcomes.

The Legal Framework Governing Alibis in Nigeria

As earlier mentioned, no Nigerian statute explicitly talks about the defence of alibi. However, it is a long-established common law principle with roots in English Common Law from where it was incorporated into Nigerian legal practice due to colonial legal influence. In English common law, the defence developed as part of the broader presumption of innocence and the requirement that the prosecution prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 also provides in Section 36 subsection 6(C) the right for an accused person to call witnesses in support of his case. Section 396 sub-section 2 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 also grants an accused person the right to call witnesses and to testify on his own behalf. Thus, once an accused raises a defence of alibi, he must substantiate his claim by calling credible witness(es) who can corroborate his claim that truly he was somewhere different from the location of the crime scene as at the time the crime was committed.

Having established the right of an accused person to call witnesses (alibi witnesses inclusive), it is pertinent to note that there are landmark Nigerian cases establishing the substantive and procedural guidelines for raising, proving and investigating an alibi. In Yanor v. The State¹
, the Supreme Court of Nigeria examined the legal effect of an alibi raised late during trial. The appellant, Yanor, was convicted of armed robbery, but on appeal, he argued that the trial court failed to consider his alibi. The key issue was whether an alibi that was not raised during police investigation but introduced for the first time at trial was sufficient to create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case. The Court acknowledged that although a delayed alibi may be viewed with caution, the law does not extinguish its probative value solely on that basis. Importantly, the Court reaffirmed the principle that once an alibi is raised, irrespective of when it was raised, the burden lies on the prosecution to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. Where the prosecution fails to investigate the alibi and the identification evidence is not sufficiently compelling, the conviction cannot be sustained. The case underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the constitutional presumption of innocence in criminal trials, reaffirming that an accused is entitled to have any reasonable doubt resolved in his favour.

The Role of Alibi Witnesses

Definition and Function of Alibi Witnesses

Alibi witnesses are individuals who provide testimony that supports an accused person’s claim of being elsewhere at the time a crime was committed. Their role is to corroborate the accused’s narrative by providing details about the accused’s whereabouts, activities, and interactions during the relevant time frame. This testimony serves as crucial evidence in establishing the alibi defence.

In practice, alibi witnesses may include friends, family members, colleagues, or any other person who can testify as to the location of the accused person at the relevant time the offence was committed. The credibility of these witnesses is paramount, as their accounts can either strengthen or weaken the alibi defence. Alibi witnesses are tasked with offering specific details about the accused’s activities, such as confirming that they were present at a social gathering, at work, or engaged in other verifiable activities that would preclude them from being at the crime scene.

Importance of Witness Testimony in Establishing an Alibi

The testimony of alibi witnesses is critical in establishing the validity of an alibi defence. It provides the necessary evidence to support the assertion that the accused could not have committed the crime due to their presence elsewhere. This testimony can help create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors or judges regarding the prosecution’s allegations.

The importance of witness testimony in alibi cases can be illustrated by several key factors:

1. Credibility and Reliability: The strength of an alibi often hinges on the credibility of the witness. If witnesses are perceived as reliable and their accounts are consistent, it enhances the credibility of the alibi claim. Conversely, if witnesses are deemed unreliable or inconsistent, it may undermine the alibi defence.

2. Corroboration of Evidence: Alibi witnesses can provide corroborative evidence that supports the accused’s whereabouts. For example, if witnesses can testify that the accused was at a specific event, and this can be verified through photographs, videos, or documentation, it strengthens the alibi. Courts typically favour alibi claims that are supported by multiple sources of evidence.

3. Creating Reasonable Doubt: The primary goal of the defence in a criminal trial is to create reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. Alibi witnesses play a vital role in this process, as their testimony can lead to doubt about the prosecution’s evidence. If the alibi witnesses convincingly establish that the accused was elsewhere, it can result in an acquittal.

4. Legal Obligations: Once an alibi is raised, the prosecution is required to investigate the claims made by the accused and their witnesses. The presence of credible alibi witnesses places an obligation on the prosecution to present compelling evidence to counter the alibi defence. If the prosecution fails to investigate or refute the claims adequately, it can lead to a dismissal of the charges.

In conclusion, alibi witnesses serve a critical function in the legal process, providing essential testimony that can substantiate the accused’s claims. Their credibility, reliability, and the corroborative nature of their evidence are fundamental in establishing a strong alibi defence. In legal proceedings, the role of alibi witnesses is indispensable in ensuring a fair trial and the protection of the rights of the accused.

Evaluating the Credibility of Alibi Witnesses

The credibility of alibi witnesses is a critical factor in the efficacy of an alibi defence in criminal proceedings. Various elements influence their credibility, and courts have established standards for evaluating such witnesses to ensure justice is served. The following key factors affect the credibility of alibi witnesses.

Factors Affecting the Credibility of Alibi Witnesses

1. Consistency of Testimony: Consistency is vital in evaluating the credibility of alibi witnesses. If witnesses provide conflicting accounts regarding the accused’s whereabouts, it raises doubts about their reliability. Courts look for coherence in the narratives presented by alibi witnesses across their statements and during cross-examination. Inconsistent testimonies can lead to perceptions of fabrication or confusion, thereby undermining the strength of the alibi defence. For instance, in Victor Essien Victor v. The State, inconsistencies in witness accounts contributed to the rejection of an alibi defence.

2. Corroborative Evidence: Corroborative evidence strengthens the reliability of an alibi by providing additional support for the claims made by the alibi witnesses. This can include physical evidence such as receipts, video footage, photographs, or testimonies from other individuals that substantiate the accused’s presence at a different location. The presence of corroborative evidence is highly regarded by courts, as it enhances the likelihood that the alibi is genuine. In the absence of such supporting evidence, the credibility of alibi witnesses may be called into question, as courts require a robust connection between witness testimony and tangible proof.

3. Opportunity to Observe: The opportunity of the alibi witness to observe the accused in the context of the claimed alibi is critical in assessing credibility. Courts consider whether the witness had a clear view of the accused and whether the circumstances allowed for an accurate identification or confirmation of the accused’s whereabouts. Factors such as lighting conditions, distance from the accused, and the duration of the observation are important. If a witness claims to have seen the accused but lacked a reasonable opportunity for accurate observation, their testimony may not be taken seriously. The case of Njovens v. The State illustrates this point, where the court scrutinized the opportunity for observation as a determinant of credibility.

Legal Precedents Emphasizing These Factors

The evaluation of alibi witness credibility has been shaped by Nigerian legal precedents. In Victor Essien Victor v. The State (((2009) LLJR-CA)) supra, the court highlighted that the prosecution must conduct thorough investigations into the alibi presented, emphasizing the necessity for consistent and corroborated witness testimony. The failure to adequately investigate an alibi can adversely affect the prosecution’s case, as the court will lean toward the defence if the alibi is supported by credible witnesses. However, if the prosecution produces credible evidence fixing the accused at the crime scene, the alibi is effectively demolished even if univestigated. 

In Njovens v. The State²supra, the court underscored the significance of opportunity to observe in the context of witness credibility, reiterating that the reliability of an alibi witness hinges on their ability to accurately identify the accused. The case established that a credible alibi can be dislodged by direct and positive evidence from prosecution witnesses who provide compelling accounts of the accused’s involvement in the crime.

In conclusion, the credibility of alibi witnesses is a multi-faceted consideration that involves examining the consistency of their testimonies, the presence of corroborative evidence, and their opportunity to observe the accused. Legal precedents in Nigeria have reinforced the importance of these factors, shaping how courts evaluate alibi defences and the testimonies of witnesses. 

Challenges in Assessing Alibi Witness’ Credibility

The following are the various factors affecting the credibility of an alibi witness:

1. Relationship to the Defendant: Research consistently shows that the closer the relationship between the alibi witness and the defendant e.g. family members, close friends etc, the less credible their testimony is perceived. Conversely, impartial strangers tend to be viewed as more reliable.
2. Consistency and detail of the Alibi story: Alibi witness’ story must be consistent over time and provide specific, verifiable details are generally seen as more believable. However, it is also noted that highly rehearsed or fabricated alibis can sometimes appear overly consistent, potentially raising suspicion. Minor lapses can ironically be more indicative of a true, untutored recollection.
3. Presence of corroborating evidence: Alibis supported by physical evidence e.g. receipts, CCTV footage, digital records etc or multiple, independent witnesses are significantly more credible than those relying solely on a single witness’ testimony.
4. Timing of Alibi disclosure: Alibis disclosed early in the investigative process are often viewed as more credible than those presented late, which may raise suspicions of fabrication.
5. Witness demeanour and presentation: Judges often rely on their intuition and gut feeling, assessing a witness’s truthfulness based on their demeanour, confidence and consistency during testimony. Non-verbal cues, while not always reliable indicators of truth, can significantly influence perception.

Other psychological factors affecting the credibility of an alibi witness include:

6. Memory reliability: Factors like stress, elapse of time since the event and the mundane nature of the alibi event can affect recall accuracy.
7. Motivation to lie/ bias: If a witness is perceived to have a strong motive to lie, e.g. to protect the defendant for financial gain or fear of retaliation or a personal bias, their credibility will be significantly undermined.

Summary, while the ultimate burden of proof lies with the prosecution, the defence bears the burden of presenting convincing evidence to establish the alibi’s credibility. Both prosecution and defence can challenge witness credibility through cross-examination thereby exposing inconsistencies and biases.

Can the person who ordered the murder of a deceased person or the commission of another crime claim alibi all because he/she was not physically present to commit the crime?

To answer this question, there is need to look at relevant provisions of the law. Under Nigerian criminal law, a person who gives orders for a crime to be committed even without physical involvement can be held criminally liable. The law does not require actual physical participation for a person to be guilty of an offence if they aided, abetted, counselled, or procured the commission of that offence. Section 7 of the Criminal Code ((Cap. C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004)) states that “when an offence is committed, each of the following persons is deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence and may be charged with actually committing it: every person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence”.³

Going by this statutory provision, a person who counsels, procures, or orders the commission of an offence is just as guilty as the person who physically commits the act. This is a form of indirect participation to which the plea of alibi will be irrelevant since ordering or procuring the commission of a crime does not require physical presence at crime scene or physical participation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the credibility of an alibi witness in Nigerian law is pivotal for the defence. Legal precedents highlight the necessity for rigorous scrutiny of alibi claims and the witnesses supporting them. The prosecution’s obligation to investigate such claims thoroughly further underscores the critical role these witnesses play in the judicial process. As legal practitioners, understanding the nuances of alibi witnesses can greatly influence case strategies and outcomes.

For a robust defence, it is essential to present credible alibi witnesses whose testimonies are consistent and corroborated by other evidence, ensuring that the accused’s claim of being elsewhere at the time of the crime holds substantial weight in court.

References

Statutes

1. Section 36(6)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended)
2. Evidence Act, 2011, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria
3. Criminal Code Act, Cap. C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004

Case Law

1. Yanor v. The State (1965) NMLR 337
2. Gachi v. The State (1965) NMLR 333
3. Njovens & Ors. v. The State (1973) 5 SC 17
4. Ozaki v. The State (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt.124) 92
5. Victor Essien Victor v. The State (2009) LLJR-CA

---

About Author

Oluwayomi Morawo graduated from the faculty of law, University of Lagos in the year 2012 and the Nigerian Law School, Bwari, Abuja in the year 2013. Due to her interests in criminal law, she did a master’s program in Legal Criminology and Security Psychology and has authored a number of articles in the fields of criminal law and criminology.

1. (1965) NMLR 337 [↩]
2. (1973) 5 SC 17 [↩]
3. Section 7(d) of the Criminal Code Cap. C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 [↩]