IREGU V. STATE (2025) 13 NWLR (PT. 2002) 189
ON PURPORT OF DEFENCE OF ALIBI
When an accused person pleads alibi, all he is saying is that he was at another place other than the scene of crime when the crime was committed.
In other words, the defence of alibi presupposes that the accused does not only deny that he committed the offence but that he was not at the locus delicti at the time the crime was committed.
[Idemudia v. State (2015) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1488) 375; Ude v. State (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1531) 122; Olatinwo v. State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 126 referred to.]
(P. 245, paras. E–G)
IREGU V. STATE (2025) 13 NWLR (PT. 2002) 189
ON DUTY OF ACCUSED RAISING DEFENCE OF ALIBI
An accused person seeking to rely on alibi as his defence must raise it timeously.
The alibi must give full particulars as to the time, place and the persons he was with. It must be raised timeously at the earliest opportunity to enable the police to investigate it.
It is the duty of the accused person at the earliest opportunity to furnish the investigating authority with comprehensive details of his whereabouts on the day the offence was committed.
Once this is done, the onus is on the prosecution to investigate the alibi and the standard of proof required to establish the defence of alibi is one based on balance of probabilities.
[Omotola v. State (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148; Njoku v. State (2021) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1771) 157; Sale v. State (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1705) 205; Ndidi v. State (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1052) 633; Smart v. State (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1518) 447 referred to.]
(Pp. 245–246, paras. G–C)
Per TSAMMANI, J.S.C. at page 246, paras. D–H:
“It is clear that the alibi relied upon by the appellant is contained in exhibit ‘A’. In the said exhibit ‘A’, the appellant stated as follows:
‘…On Saturday 25th February, 2006 at about 1200 hrs while I was selling at my shade in Zango Market, Adavi one Basiru “m” surname unknown came to me and informed that the said Oziohu Iregu “F” has been killed …’
It is my view that the above statement fell short of what was required of the appellant in his quest to establish alibi. He only stated that he was in his shade at the Zango Market, Adavi.
It is common knowledge that a market is a place where so many people meet for the purpose of plying their wares. Therefore, many people assemble in the market. In the circumstances, the appellant could not have been the only person in the market.
There is no evidence that as a butcher, he is the only butcher in that market but the appellant failed to mention the name of any other trader or butcher who was in the market with him between 6.00am to 12 noon on the day the crime was committed.
It is true that the appellant mentioned one Basiru who told him of the incident but did not give full particulars of the said Basiru so as to enable the prosecution contact him on the alibi raised. I therefore hold that, there was no information given by the appellant which could enable the police to investigate on the alibi so raised.”
IREGU V. STATE (2025) 13 NWLR (PT. 2002) 189
ON WHEN DEFENCE OF ALIBI WILL NOT AVAIL ACCUSED
Where there is positive evidence fixing an accused person to the scene of crime, an alibi raised would have been effectively cancelled.
In other words, where the prosecution is able to lead or adduce credible evidence accepted by the court which fixes the accused person to the scene of crime at the material time, his defence of alibi would have been logically and effectively extinguished.
In the instant case, the appellant confessed to the crime, which confession was found to have been voluntarily made. The confession without any reasonable doubt fixed the appellant at the scene of crime at the time the offence was committed.
The trial court and the Court of Appeal were right that the appellant failed to establish any alibi.
[Ndukwe v. State (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 43; Omotola v. State (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 148; Attah v. State (2009) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1164) 284; Njoku v. State (2021) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1771) 157 referred to.]
(P. 247, paras. A–D)
AMEYI SHAYE. V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 113.
On Meaning of “alibi”
Alibi means the fact or state of having been elsewhere when an offence was committed. The defence of alibi is based on the physical impossibility of the accused being guilty by placing him in another location at the relevant time.
In essence, alibi, as a defence, simply put, seeks to establish that at all times material to the commission of the offence, the accused person was nowhere near the locus of the crime, and ordinarily therefore he could not be expected to be involved in the physical execution of the crime alleged.
In the instant case, it was clear that the first time any reference was made to the defence of alibi by the appellant was in course of his oral evidence in his defence. It was not raised during his interrogation by the Police Officers in the aftermath of his arrest. The lower courts were thus correct in their rejection of the defence of alibi by the appellant.
[Dage v. State (2019) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1686) 204; Sanmi v. State (2019) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1690) 551; Opeyemi v. State (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1702) 403; Sale v. State (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1705) 205; Ugwu v. State (2020) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1746) 1; Ebre v. State (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt. 728) 617 referred to.] (Pp. 149, paras. A-D; 150, paras. B-C)
AMEYI SHAYE. V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2025) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1995) 113.
On Duty on accused person to raise defence of alibi at the earliest opportunity
For an alibi to be a defence, it must be raised at the earliest stage and not after at the trial. It is a defence and not an afterthought. Since it is a defence capable of discharging and acquitting the accused person, it should be used without reservation and at the earliest opportunity by the accused person. It should be taken advantage of first and used as a potent defence and not as a resort to the accused person. For the defence of alibi to be properly raised, it must be raised at the earliest opportunity when an accused person is confronted by the police with the commission of an offence so that the police will be in a position to check the alibi. In the instant case, the appellant’s counsel argued that the appellant raised a successful alibi by stating names, places and particulars, which were corroborated by 2 witnesses. As convincing as this sounds to inure in favour of the appellant, it was unfortunately raised not as a defence but as an afterthought. It was not raised at the earliest stage to the police for investigation but at the trial when investigation of the crime was foreclosed and made impossible. Besides, the wholesale admission in exhibit C made mincemeat of the defence of alibi which the appellant invented, brandished and paraded to puncture the judgment of the trial court. On the footing of exhibit C, the appellant fixed himself at the locus criminis vis-à-vis the commission of the homicide. The defence therefore could not avail the appellant and was useless.
[Ebenehi v. State (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 431 referred to.] (Pp. 136-137, paras. F-B; 142, paras. C-E)
OKERE V. I.G.P. (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 341
ON MEANING OF “ALIBI”
“Alibi” is a Latin word which means “elsewhere”. When an accused person raises the defence of alibi, he is telling the court that he was not at the scene of crime. In other words, that he was at a named place or location at the time the offence for which he is charged was committed and could not have been at the scene of crime at the time the offence was committed. (P. 375, paras. D-E).
OKERE V. I.G.P. (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 341
ON ONUS ON ACCUSED AND POLICE WHERE ALIBI IS RAISED
Where the defence is raised, the Police has the duty to investigate the veracity of the facts pleaded as alibi by the accused. Since the facts constituting the alibi raised by an accused person are peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, and such witnesses that he may provide in support of his plea of alibi, he has the evidential burden to disclose those facts with necessary details and particulars as to time, place and the persons he was with. The disclosure must be made at the earliest opportunity such as to transfer the burden to the Police to investigate. That being so, once the accused person raises the defence timeously with full particulars, the burden then shifts to the Police to investigate in order to verify such claim. Thus, where the defence is properly and correctly raised and the prosecution fails to investigate same, the court will be right to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstance, it cannot be said that the accused person is the one who committed or participated in the commission of the offence charged. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal rightly held that the alibi raised by the appellant was an afterthought, deliberately crafted to deflect the uncontradicted and uncontroverted evidence against him. [Adegbite v. State (2018) 5NWLR (Pt.1612) 183; Shehu v. State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 112; Ude v. State (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt.1531) 122; Aliyu v. State (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt.1368)403; Ochemaje v. State (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt.1109)57; Afolalu v. State (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt.1127) 160; Ikumonihan v. State (2018) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1640) 456; Aje v. State (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt.980) 637; Mohammed v. State (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1468) 496 referred to.](Pp. 375-376, paras. E-B; 378, paras. E-F).
JOHN V. STATE (2025) 1 NWLR (PT. 1972) 181
ON MEANING OF ALIBI AND WHAT IT SEEKS TO ESTABLISH
Alibi means that an accused defendant was somewhere than the place the prosecution alleges he was at the time the offence was committed. Alibi is Latin for “elsewhere”. The defence of alibi is based on the physical impossibility of the accused being guilty by placing him in another location at the relevant time. Alibi as a defence seeks to establish that at all times material to the commission of the offence, the accused person was nowhere near the locus of the crime, and ordinarily therefore could not be expected to be involved in the physical execution of the crime alleged. [Gachi v. State (1965) NMLR 333; Aiguoreghian v. State (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt. 860) 367; Akindipe v. State (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt.1536) 470; Dage v. State (2019) 12 NW LR (Pt. 1686)204; Sanmi v. State (2019) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1690) 551; Opeyemi v. State (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt.1702) 403; Sale v. State (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1705) 205; Ugwuv. State (2020) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1723) 259; Ebre v. State (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt. 728) 617 referred to.] (Pp.201, paras. B-C; 212, paras. E-H).
JOHN V. STATE (2025) 1 NWLR (PT. 1972) 181
ON WHEN THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI SHOULD BE RAISED
The defence of alibi should be done or raised at the earliest available or possible opportunity by a suspect to a criminal accusation by the police or the State, at the stage of investigation to enable the police or the State establish its falsity or truth. For the defence of alibi to be “properly raised” means that it is the duty of the accused to furnish the police with specific particulars of where he was at the material time, also the people he was with at the time, to enable the police move straight to that place to carry out investigation.
JOHN V. STATE (2025) 1 NWLR (PT. 1972) 181
ON WHEN THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI WILL FAIL
The initial duty is on a suspect to furnish adequate information from which his whereabouts, at the critical or crucial time, can be fact-checked and if there is more credible evidence locating him at the scene of crime or where he was seen committing the offence, his defence of alibi will collapse, crumble or fail. Investigation of defence of alibi is not necessary if, as in this case, the evidence unequivocally points to the accused person as the culprit.
JOHN V. STATE (2025) 1 NWLR (PT. 1972) 181
ON DUTY ON PROSECUTION ONCE ACCUSED ADDUCED EVIDENCE OF AN ALIBI
Once an accused discharges the evidential burden of adducing evidence of an alibi, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it. Once the defence of alibi is properly raised by the accused person during investigation showing that he was “elsewhere” at the time of the commission of the crime, it is the duty of the police to investigate it. In the instant case, the prosecution had no onus either to investigate or disprove any alibi since it was neither properly raised by the appellant, as a suspect before the police, nor did he tender any evidence in court of his purported alibi. [Okoduwa v. State (1988) Okoduwa v. State (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 76) 333 referred to.] (P.203, paras. E-G).