Alibi

Alibi means "elsewhere". When an accused contends that he cannot be guilty of the offence charged because at the time of commission of the offence, he was somewhere else raises the defence of alibi or an alibi defence.

Nnamdi Osuagwu v. State: Lor(25/1/13)

It is settled that once a defence of alibi is properly raised by an Accused during the investigations, it is the duty of the police to investigate it and the duty of the Prosecution to disprove it see Adebiyi v. State (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1515) 456. However, for the defence of alibi to be worthy of investigation it must be precise and specific in terms of the place that the Accused was and the person or persons he was with and possibly what he was doing there at the material time see Shehu v. State (supra) and Ochemaje v. State (supra) and Adebiyi v. State (supra) wherein this Court, per Nweze, JSC, stated the position of the law as follows When an Accused Person raises the said defence (of alibi), his assertion comes to this: he was elsewhere; hence he could not have been at the scene of the crime at the same time... A successful defence of alibi has a direct bearing on the Accused Persons responsibility in relation to the alleged offence. This explains why it is not, readily, conceded with levity to the Accused. This is because, when properly established, it has the far-reaching effect of exculpating the Accused from complete criminal responsibility... To be entitled to its beneficent effect; such an Accused must raise it at the earliest opportunity, which would, preferably, be in his extra-judicial statement. This is to offer the Police an opportunity either to confirm or confute its availability to the Accused Person... Above all, the said defence must be unequivocal as to the particulars of the Accused Persons whereabouts and those present with him... It is only where such an Accused Person raised the defence at the earliest opportunity without any ambiguity that a burden is cast on the Prosecution to investigate it... and to disprove same... Failure to investigate the defence of alibi raised in such circumstance, will lead to an acquittal..." See also Ochemaje v. State (supra), wherein Tobi, JSC, observed It is not the law...

Alibi is Latin for "elsewhere". It also means "the fact or state of having been elsewhere when an offence was committed" Blackss Law Dictionary, 8th Ed., Shehu v. State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1195) 112, Dagayya v. State(2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 980) 637, Ochemaje v. State (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1109) 57 SC.

One of the issues the appellant raised in this appeal is that he raised the defence of alibi which was not investigated by the police. Where the evidence is overwhelming, as in this case, where the appellant was found with some of the robbed items soon after the robbery and did not offer a reasonable explanation as to how he came in contact with the items robbed, the alibi will not avail him and the trial Court can invokeSection 167 Evidence Act to presume either he is the robber or knew that the item he was found with was a robbed item.
See: Fatai Olayinka v. The State (2007) NWLR (Pt. 1040) 561; Benson Ukwunnenyi v. The State (1989) NWLR (Pt. 114) 131; Egbophonome v. C.O.P. (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 306) 383; Michael Hausa v. State (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 350) 281.

It is not surprising that the learned trial judge dismissed the alibi raised by the appellant considering that the appellant put across that defence of being elsewhere at the time of the commission of the offence as a defence that did not hold water. This is because the appellant brought up this story of being in police custody at the material time for the first not at the time of his arrest for the incident in question now but during his testimony in defence by which time it had became too late and of no effect. The reason is that an alibi is to be raised at the earliest opportunity because of the role the prosecution has to play in it after the accused has furnished the prosecution with the details of his whereabout at the relevant time. It is with those particulars that the prosecution would then set about investigating the alibi to produce one or the other result that is either the alibi affirmed or debunked. Therefore the accused/appellant in this case raising the alibi at this late stage, the effect is akin to a still birth and the alibi so raised comes to naught. See Udobre v. The State (2001) FWLR (Pt. 59) 1244 at 1258-1259.

The submission of the appellant's counsel on the so – called defence of alibi glossed over the available evidence before the trial Court. Exhibit A, clearly, fixed him [the appellant] at the locus criminis, the scene of crime. As this Court held in Sunday v The State (2010) LPELR 1470 (SC) 28; B -D:
A plea of alibi by an accused person simply means that he was 'elsewhere' at the time of the alleged offence. If therefore the prosecution can lead strong and positive evidence which fixes the accused person at the scene of crime and which evidence the Court accepts the alibi naturally collapses." Adekunle v State [1989] 5 NWLR (Pt.123) 505, 513; Patrick Njovens and Ors v The State [1973] 1 NWLR (sic) 331,
See, also, Obakpolo v. State [1991] 1 SCNJ 9; Attah v State [2010] Vol. 3 (Pt. iv) MJSC 139; Njovens v. The State[1973] 5 SC 17; Afolalu v. State [2010] All FWLR (Pt.538) 812; Michael Hausa v. The State [1994] 6 NWLR (Pt.350) 281; Peter v. The State (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt.496) 625; Omotola and Ors v. The State (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt.1139) 148.

On alibi, it is settled law that a defence of alibi, when raised successfully, is a complete defence to the offence charged. It is a defence that raises doubt as to the identity of the perpetrator of the offence charged, particularly, as it contends that the accused was, at the time material to the commission of the offence, at a different location from the scene of crime thereby making it physically impossible for the accused to have been the person who committed the alleged offence as it is impracticable for a person to be at two different locations at the same time.
However, for the defence to apply, it is required of the accused to provide the prosecution/police, at the earliest opportunity, with the details of his movements on the date in question to enable the police/prosecution check the said details. See OBIODE VS THE STATE (1970) 1 ALL NLR 36; NSOFOR VS. STATE (2002) 10 NWLR (Pt.775) 274 etc.

The finding is amply supported by the decisions of this Court to the effect the alibi crumbles and is destroyed the moment the prosecution raises and gives superior evidence fixing the Defendant not only to the scene of the crime, but also to the actual commission of the alleged crime: DAGAYYA v. THE STATE (supra). See also ODIDIKA v. THE STATE (1977) 2 S.C. 21; NJOVENS v. THE STATE (1973) 5 S.C. 17; IKEMSON v. THE STATE (1989) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.110) 453 (S.C).

The defence of alibi is not established by mere waving it to the trial Court. It is not sacrosanct either. This Court inDAGAYYA v. THE STATE (2006) NWLR (Pt.980) 637; (2006) ALL F.W.L.R. (Pt.308) 1212, cited by the Appellant's Counsel: had stated the law on alibi clearly thus: the defence of alibi crumbles the moment the prosecution gives superior evidence fixing the Defendant not only to the scene of the crime, but also to his commission of the offence.

When validly raised with sufficient particulars of the whereabouts of the Defendant, alibi obligates or makes it incumbent on the prosecution to investigate it with the view of either validating it or debunking it: BALOGUN v. A.G. OGUN STATE (supra). alibi, if successfully pleaded and established, is an absolute or complete defence that negatives both the acteus reus and the mens rea of the offence. It does entitle the Defendant to acquittal and order of discharge: UKWUNNENYI v. THE STATE (supra).

Counsel submits further, and correctly too, that alibi means that the accused, at the material time, was somewhere else and not at the scene of crime when the alleged offence was committed: BALOGUN V. A.G., OGUN STATE (2002) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt.763) 512 at 536. The plea of alibi runs on some very well known principles. That is:
(1.) The Defendant who raises alibi does so to discharge the evidential burden he has to cast doubt on the prosecution's case. It is discharged on a preponderance of evidence. That is on a balance of probabilities: OZAKI v. THE STATE (1990) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.124) 92 at 110. (2.) The Defendant who intends to set up the defence, or who sets up the defence of alibi is enjoined to give sufficient details or particulars of his whereabouts in order to enable the Police or the prosecution investigate it with the view to either affirm it or debunk it: BENSON UKWUNNENYI v. THE STATE(1989) 7 S.C. (Pt.1) 64; (1989) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt.114) 131. The duty on the Defendant to establish his alibi lies in the fact that the burden of proving the fact peculiarly within his knowledge lies on him by dint of Sections 140, 131, & 132 of the evidence Act, 2011. Additionally, fair hearing, particularly audi alteram partem, demands of him not to take the prosecution by surprise, hence the duty on him, within a reasonable time, to give particulars of his whereabouts. Failure of the Defendant to give particulars of alibi is fatal to the defence; OKAI v. THE STATE (1989) 2 S.C.N.J. 183 at 191.

The law is well settled and is trite too, that for the defence of alibi to avail an accused person, such defence must be raised by him at the earliest opportunity so as to give the police enough time to investigate it and offer evidence in rebuttal or in support of it. See Salami v. The State [1988) 3 NWLR pt.670; State v Pete Eze [1976] SC 125 at 129. Similarly, an accused in order to succeed or benefit from the defence of alibi, it is incumbent upon him to give a detailed particularization of his whereabouts at as the time material to the commission of the offence he is charged with, which will also include stating the specific place(s) he was, where he was and the people he was with and if possible what transpired at the time and place(s). Such comprehensive information or particulars furnished must also be possible of being investigated unquestionably. See Udoebre v The State [2001] 6 SCNJ 66. It is only after this particularization was supplied to the police and raised timeously too, that the police has the burden to investigate it. That is to say, it must raised by the accused person at the earliest opportunity and NOT at the 23rd hour of the day.

The word 'Alibi' is a Latin word simply meaning elsewhere" where it is raised by an accused person/appellant, he means to express on the impression to the trial Court that he was not at the scene of the crime the time material to the commission of the offence he was charged with or is standing trial on. See Gachi v The State (1965) NMLR 334; Nwabueze v The State (1988) 4 NWLR (pt. 86) 16; Adio v The State (1986) 3 NWLR (pt. 31) 774; State v Aibangbee (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 84) 548.

My Lords, it has become fashionable for accused persons who have no defence whatsoever to the cases which the Prosecution made against them to conjure the bogus defence of alibi. It would appear that they resort to this disingenuous ploy in the vain hope that, like the magical incantation of open sesame by the fictional Ali Baba and his forty thieves', such a sham defence could open the doors to their freedom. However, this is not the juridical rationale for the said defence. For the umpteenth time, it ought to be emphasized that, to be entitled to the beneficent effect of the defence of alibi, an accused person must raise it at the earliest opportunity, Hassan v The State [2001] 6 NWLR (pt 709) 286, 305, which would, preferably, be in his extra-judicial statement. This is to offer the Police an opportunity either to confirm or confute its availability to the accused person. Ibrahim v The State [1991] 4 NWLR (pt 186) 399; Nwabueze v The State (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 86); Ikemson v The State (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 110) 455. What is more, the said defence must be unequivocal as to the particulars of his whereabouts and those present with him. Onyegbu v The State (1995) 4 SCNJ 275, 285- 286; Ibrahin v State (supra); Balogun v. AG, Ogun State [2002] 6 NWLR (pt 763) 512, 535-536; Eke v The State (2011) LPELR – 1133 (SC) 16. It is only where an accused person, such as the appellant, raised the said defence at the earliest opportunity without any ambiguity that a burden is cast on the Prosecution to investigate It. Eyisi v State (2000) 4 NSCQR 60 and to disprove same, Eke v The State (supra). Failure to investigate the defence of alibi raised in such circumstance will lead to an acquittal. Yanor v The State (1965) ANLR (Reprint) 199; Bello v. Police [1956] SCNLR 113; Odu and Anor v The State (2001) 5 SCNJ 115, 120; (2001) 10 NWLR (PT. 772) 668. However, the said defence would be unavailing to a situation, as In this case, where the accused person raised it during the...

Alibi means elsewhere. When the defence of alibi is raised, the accused person is simply saying that he was at a different place on the date of the incident.
Alibi is one of the best defence available provided it is raised with detail particulars at the earliest opportunity and not at trial.
When an accused person is arrested by the Police and accused of committing an offence, e.g. Murder, armed robbery etc, and he intends to rely on the defence of Alibi, such a defence must be raised at the earliest opportunity, i.e. timeously. This is done when he is called upon by the investigating police officer to write his statement. For an alibi to be worth investigating by the investigating police officer, the accused person must give full details (particulars) of where he was when the offence was committed. Where defence of alibi is put forward timeously, the prosecution is expected to investigate it. Failure to investigate an alibi may cast some doubt on the probability of the case for the prosecution, but such doubt quickly disappears when there is credible and compelling evidence fixing the accused person at the scene of the crime. The burden of proving an alibi is on the prosecution and not on the accused person, and the standard of proof required to establish the defence of alibi is one based on balance of probabilities. The defence succeeds when the trial judge is satisfied that it is probable that the accused was not at the scene of crime on the day the crime was committed. He was somewhere else. See Osuagwu v State (2013) 1-2 SC (Pt.1) P. 37; Adebiyi v State (2016) 1-2 SC (Pt.IV) P.95.

A defence of alibi fails when the prosecution is able to show that the accused person was at the scene of crime when the offence was committed. See Egwumi v. State (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt.1372) p.525.

It would then be the duty of the investigating Police officer to investigate it. Failure to investigate it properly may cast some doubt on the probability of the prosecutions case. The accused person is required to raise the defence of alibi and adduce evidence in support. The burden of proving an alibi is on the prosecution and not on the accused person.

When an accused person relies on the defence of alibi he is simply saying that when the offence was committed he was not at the scene of the crime, but somewhere else. The defence of alibi must be raised at the earliest opportunity by the accused person and this would be when he makes his statement to the Police investigating officers. It must be detailed on where he was on the date in question, and who he was with.

Following in the path laid out by this Court and followed in numerous judicial decisions, I would restate that the principles guiding the use of alibi as a defence open to an accused such as the appellant herein is not an automatic exculpatory defence such that once raised, the accused gets off. The reasons are that an alibi must be put across timeously or at the first opportunity with details for the prosecution or the police to investigate to confirm the truth thereof or that the alibi did not hold water.
However, that an alibi was raised by an accused and not investigated does not translate to the alibi's acceptance as gospel if the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial effectively fixed or apprehended the accused at the scene of crime at the material time. When that happens the alibi is demolished or destroyed and becomes ineffectual or of no use.
I shall refer in support to the case of Monday Odu v. The State (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt.722) 668 at 674 per Mohammed JSC as follows:-
"...Although there are occasions on which failure to check an alibi may cast doubt on the reliability of the case for the prosecution, yet where there is positive evidence which cancels the alibi, the failure to investigate the alibi would not be fatal to conviction. I do not have to repeat what this Court had said in several decisions, but the onus of establishing alibi, being a matter within the personal knowledge of an accused lies on him. It is not enough for the accused to say to the Court that I was at a particular place away from the scene of crime, he has to prove his assertion. Even if the police have failed to investigate such assertion, the accused has the onus of adducing evidence on which he relies for his defence of alibi. The issue of the defence of alibi has failed."
See alsoHausa v State (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt.350) 281 at 301-302.

Although the appellant raised a defence of alibi, he did not supply any details of where he was at the material time the offence took place. There was inconsistency between the address given in his statement and the address he gave in Court. Furthermore, he was positively placed at the scene of crime. A defence of alibi means that the accused person is contending that he was elsewhere and could not physically be in two places at the same time. Once there is direct and positive evidence placing the accused person at the scene of crime, the defence of alibi collapses like a pack of cards. See: Njovens Vs. The State (1973) 5 SC 17. Obidike Vs. The State(2014) LPELR -22590 (SC) @ 48 B-E. Nwabueze Vs. The State (1988) 4 NWLR (pt. 86) 16.

Quite apart from all I have said above, the law is trite that where there is direct and positive evidence of participation in the commission of the offence charged, the alibi, even if raised, will be rebutted by such evidence. See Aliyu v. The State (2013) FWLR 1497. In Njovens v. The State (1973) 5 SC 12 at P. 68, this Court stated the position of the law concerning the plea of alibi as follows: –
"There is nothing extra-ordinary or esoteric in a plea of alibi. Such a plea postulates that the accused person could not have been at the scene of the crime and only inferentially that he was not there. Even if it is the duty of the prosecution to check on a statement of alibi by an accused person and disprove the alibi or attempt to do so, there is no inflexible and/or invariable way of doing this, If the prosecution adduced sufficient and accepted evidence to fix the person at the scene of crime at the material time, surely this alibi is thereby logically and physically demolished."
See also Sunday Madagwa v. The State (1988) 5 NWLR (pt. 92) P. 60; Owolabi Kolade v. The State (2017) LPELR – 42382 (SC).

It cannot be speculated. An alibi must be specific with particulars to enable the police investigate same.

It must be emphasized that the plea of alibi, whenever it is raised, the prosecution is under a bounded duty to investigate the alibi. This is so because the plea presupposes that the accused not only claims he never committed the offence but that he was not at all at the locus delictis. However, the alibi must be definite as to time, place and the persons who know about accused's whereabouts. It should not be just to set the police on a wild goose chase. See Chukwu v. The State (1996) LPELR – 856 (SC), (1996) 7 NWLR, (pt. 463) 686, Yanor & Anor v. The State (1965) NWLR, 337 at 341 – 342; Abubakar Mohammed v. The State (2015) LPELR -24397 (SC).

Once a plea of alibi is proved, it serves as a complete exoneration of the accused/appellant from the commission of the crime alleged. See Anselem Agu v. The State (2017) LPELR – 41664 (SC), Adebiyi v. The State (2016) LPELR – 40008 (SC).

The accused must furnish the particulars of his alibi in full details to the police. He would not only furnish his whereabout at the time material to the commission of the offence, he must also mention those present with him at the address so furnished. See Ozaki & Anor v. The State(1990) LPELR – 2888 (SC), (1990) 1 NWLR (pt. 124) 92.

Whenever an accused person intends to rely for his defence, an alibi, the law is trite that he must raise it at the first possible opportunity in answer to a charge by the police at the investigation stage to enable the truth and falsity of the allegation to be established by the police. The accused must furnish the particulars of his alibi in full details to the police. He would not only furnish his whereabout at the time material to the commission of the offence, he must also mention those present with him at the address so furnished. See Ozaki & Anor v. The State(1990) LPELR – 2888 (SC), (1990) 1 NWLR (pt. 124) 92.

Simply put, the word alibi means "elsewhere". Whenever an accused person's defence to a criminal charge is alibi, he is simply saying that he was at another place at the time material to the charge. The defence is based on the physical impossibility of an accused's guilt by placing him in a location other than the scene of the crime at the relevant time. See Blacks' Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, page 84, Shehu v. The State (2010) 8 NWLR (pt. 1195) 112, Olatinwo v. The State (2013) LPELR – 19979 (SC) (2013) 8 NWLR (pt. 1355) 126, Ayan v. The State (2013) LPELR – 20932 (SC), (2013) 15 NWLR (pt. 1376) 34, Idemudia v. The State (2015) LPELR – 24835 (SC), Eyisi & Ors vs. The State (2000) LPELR – 1186 (SC) (2000) 15 NWLR (pt. 691) 555.

Whenever an accused person intends to set up a defence of alibi, he should do so at the earliest opportunity during the investigation to enable the investigation police officer to investigate the allegation of being elsewhere when the offence was committed. Where it is done for the first time in Court, as in this case, the defence does not avail the accused person. This is so because at that stage the investigation had been concluded and there is no way the truth of the defence could be tested. Seelkemson v The State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455; ldiok v State (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 1; Dagayya v State (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 980) 637.

It is also settled that a defence of alibi, to be worthy of investigation, must be precise and specific in terms of the place that the Accused was and the person or persons he was with and possibly what he was doing there at the material time. SeeShehu v. State (supra) and Ochemaje v. State (supra), where Tobi, JSC expatiated as follows-
It is not the law that the police should be involved in a wild goose chase for the whereabouts of the Accused person at the time the crime was committed. No. That is not the function or role of the Police. The Accused must give specific particulars of where he was at the time of the material time to enable the Police move straight to that place to carry out the investigation required by law Investigation is not a necessity if the evidence unequivocally points to the guilt of the accused person., either in the evidence of the witnesses or under cross-examination of the acused or his witness. The learned trial judge relied on the evidence of PW1, PW2, Pw3 and PW6 I am of the view that the defence of alibi is a mere farce and an afterthought. It fails. After all, a trial Judge will not take seriously a defence of alibi which is porous and cosmetic. That is the way I see Appellants defence of alibi.

Once the defence is properly raised by an accused during investigations, it is the duty of the police to investigate it and for the Prosecution to disprove it.
But it is not in all cases that failure to investigate an alibi will be fatal to the case of the prosecution. This Court made this point clear in Olaiya v. State (2010) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1181) 423, wherein it adopted its decision inHemyo Ntam v. State (1968) NMLR 86 as follows-
There are occasions on which a failure to check an alibi may cast doubt on the reliability of the case for the prosecution, but in a case such as this where the Appellants were identified by three eye witnesses there was a straight issue of credibility and we are not able to say that the Judges findings of facts were unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. If the alibi had been true it would have been open to the Appellant to call witnesses in support on them and neither of them did so.
And also in Michael Hausa v. State (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 350) 281-
Once the prosecution through its witnesses establish that they (the witnesses) saw the Appellant committing the offence charged, a defence of alibi by the Appellant raises the straight issues of credibility to wit; whether the evidence of the witnesses is believable and if believed, the alibi is logically demolished or fizzles into thin air and so doomed.

The defence of alibi is based on the physical impossibility of an Accused person being guilty by placing him in another location at the relevant time. It also means the fact or state of having been elsewhere when an offence was committed. See Blacks Law Dictionary, 8th Ed., Shehu v. State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1195) 112, Dagayya v. State (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt 980) 637 SC. Ochemaje v. State (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1109) 57.

The law is trite also, that where an accused person raises the defence of Alibi, the law requires him to state at the earliest opportunity and to give information as to his whereabouts at the time of the commission of the offence and with who or in whose company he was with. ln otherwords, he has to give detailed particulars of where he was other than at the scene of the crime. Such defence must also be raised at the earliest opportunity in order to give the police notice for them to investigate or verify the truth of his alibi defence. Failing to do this, such defence if raised, will not avail him. See Adisa Wale v The State (2013) 14 NWLR (pt 1375) 567; Esannegbedo vs The State (1989)4 NWLR (pt. 113)57.

It is settled law that any evidence of Alibi raised by an accused person can not be brushed aside unless the prosecution produced a much stronger or greater and more convincing evidence to counter or neutralise it.

It is not only incumbent on the appellant to inform the police of his alibi but he should also furnish the police with detailed particulars of his whereabouts so that same could be properly investigated. See the case of Okolo Ochemaje V. State (2008) 10 SCM page 103 @ 107 where it was held that:-
"the police in order to investigate a Plea of alibi must have specific particulars of where the accused was at the material time --
It is not the law that the Police should be involved in a wild goose chase for the whereabouts of an accused at the time the crime was committed ......... the accused must give specific particulars of where he was at the material time to enable the Police move straight to that place to carry out the investigation required by law.

The defence of alibi connotes the physical impossibility of a Person or an accused to be somewhere else and at the same time at the scene at a crime. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, alibi is a complete defence, which if proved in favour of an accused person, absolves him of any criminal liability.
The defence must be raised timeously at the earliest opportunity of contact with the investigating security agencies. The appellant must furnish the agencies with sufficient particulars about his whereabouts on the day in question. Thereafter, the duty shifts to the prosecution to investigate the alibi and affirm or disprove same. The defence is destroyed by a contrary evidence fixing the accused at the place of crime. However, if successfully disproved the defence fails. See this Court in Ikemson v. The State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) P 455 @ 479 780.

Appellant's alibi comes into issue only when a prima facie case is made out against him by the respondent in respect of the offences he is charged.

The word "alibi", is a latin word which means, the appellant was elsewhere and NOT at the scene the crime was allegedly committed. See Sowemimo v State (2004)11NWLR (pt.885)515; Aiguoreghian v State (2004)3 NWLR (pt.860)367. Ordinarily, when such defence is raised at the earliest opportunity, the prosecution has a duty to investigate and check the details of the "alibi' and verify his assertion. But if the accused fails to furnish the particulars of his whereabouts, then that failure would weaken his defence. See Sowemimo V State (supra).
However, in a situation where an accused person is unequivocally pinned to the locus in quo as in this instant case, as one of the accused persons who committed the offence, then the defence of alibi would not avail him.

For emphasis, it has to be said that it is not in all cases where the police fails to investigate an alibi such as the case in hand where the alibi was raised timeously that such failure would be taken to have a fatal effect on the case of the prosecution. This is so when the evidence proffered by the prosecution is such that the accused was well at the scene of crime at the material time. In the case at hand the evidence of PW1 was credible and strong enough to destroy the alibi raised by the appellant and so the fact that the alibi was not investigated is of no moment. See Ayan v The State (2013) 55 NSCQR 228-229; Gachi v State (1965) NMLR 333; Odidika v State (1977) 2 SC 21; Yanor v State (1965) All NLR 193; Salami v State (1988) 3 NWLR (pt.85) 670 at 677.

Indeed the defence of alibi is a magic wand when raised and investigated thereof proves it to be true. It automatically exculpates the accused from blame when the alibi iestablished. I rely on Mohammed v The State(2015) 243 LRCN 122 at 148; Egwumi v The State (2013) 220 LRCN (Pt.1) 224; Egbirika v The State (2014) 227 LRCN 1.

If however the accused at the earliest opportunity raised the defence of alibi and the Police or the investigating authority failed to follow it up to verify or disprove the claim or defence, the Court may hold that the prosecution had failed to prove his case. See: Nma Dogo Vs. The State(2001) LPELR 956(SC).

The appellant has claimed that the alibi put up by him before the Police in his statement at the Station, where he was taken was destroyed by the police. How are we to know? The burden duty, in any case, is for him (appellant) to prove the alibi relied on by him by leading evidence to that effect. See:Etim Etim Udo V. State (2015) LPELR 25767 (CA). If he fails in his duty to prove the alibi, the prosecution has nothing to disprove hence the prosecution on whom lies the general burden of proof at the guilt of the accused person is taken as having established his case beyond and reasonable doubt. See Gachi V. State (1965) NWLR 333. In any case, the defence of alibi pales into insignificance where evidence unquestionably fixes the accused person (appellant) to the scene of crime. Ochemaje V. State (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1109) 2; Yahaya V. State (2016) LPELR- 40254 (CA).

In any case, the defence of alibi which seeks to establish the fact that the accused/appellant was elsewhere at the material times of the incident for which he was alleged he was part, must be raised at the earliest opportunity when the suspect is confronted with a charge so as to enable the party making the allegation or charge to investigate the alibi put up by the accused and ascertain the truth or otherwise of the claim or alibi. See: Ozaki Vs. State (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 124) 92.

However, where an accused person decides to raise the defence of Alibi while testifying for his defence in the Court (as done by the appellant in this instant appeal), it could be regarded that he deliberately wanted to deny the prosecution its right and duty to investigate the defence. See Gachi v. The State (1965) NMLR 333; Udoebre v The State (2001) 6 SCNJ 66-67.
Moreover, where an alibi defence is vague, nebulous and misleading and is also devoid of material facts worthy of or impossible to be investigated by the police, in such circumstance the trial Court can rightly discard it, rather than to engage on wild goose chase all in the name of investigation. In that case, the Court would have nothing before it to consider as alibi defence. In the result, all l am saying is that once alibi defence was not raised timeously, or no particulars of where the accused was on the material date and time was furnished or that it was vague or a mere camouflage, then it does not qualify as a valid defence worthy of being investigated. As I said supra, the appellant defence of alibi raised fell short of particulars and was also not raised timeously. It was therefore rightly rejected by the trial Court and the Court below was equally right in affirming the finding of the trial Court in that regard.

However, for the defence of Alibi to avail an accused person, the law requires that he must raise such defence at the earliest opportunity to enable the police investigate it and therefore he must offer evidence. See Salam v. The State (1988) 3 NWLR 670; State v. Peter Eze (1976) SC 125 at 129/130; State v. Francis Odili (1977) 4 SC 1 at 5-6.
Also in order to take advantage of the defence of Alibi the accused must give a detailed particularization of his whereabouts on the crucial day and time of the offence which should also include the specific places he was, the people in whose company he was and what had transpired on the said day and at the said time and place or places. Once these comprehensive information are furnished to the police at the earliest stage then the police are duty bound to investigate and ascertain the veracity of such information. See Udoebre v. The State (2001) 6 SCNJ 66. Furthermore, these information must be furnished to the police preferable in the accused person's cautionary statement for the police to investigate.

The appellant in his defence raised issues of alibi and self defence. I seek to say quickly that the two defences are very much contradictory and thus bringing the appellant again into the same situation of inconsistency as he was when he gave evidence in Court which contradicted his extra-judicial statement to the police.
While defence of alibi exonerates the accused totally from being present at the scene of the crime, self defence, though, it also exonerates completely from culpability, it however connotes that the accused was at the scene of crime and in fact was responsible for the act which he alleges was necessitated as a reason for his exercise of self defence.

A plea of alibi, if found to be true is a complete defence which absolves the accused person of the charge. A plea of alibi crumbles if the prosecution adduces sufficient and accepted evidence to fix the accused person at the scene of the crime at the time the offence was committed. See
Osuagwu v. State (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt.1347) p.360
Ozaki v. State (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 124) p.92 Gachi v. State (1965) NWLR p. 333

Alibi means elsewhere. That is to say when the offence was committed the accused person was not at the scene of the crime. He was somewhere else. When an accused person is arrested by the police and investigation commences, the accused person is asked under caution to write a statement. It is at this stage that the accused person raises the defence of Alibi.
He must state the day, time, and address of where he was when the offence was committed. The onus is not on the accused person to establish alibi rather it is on the prosecution to disprove it, but the police has no duty to disprove a worthless alibi.
When the defence of alibi is raised in detail stating exactly where he was on the day and time the offence was committed the police must investigate it properly to see if it is true.

Failure to investigate the defence of alibi raised in such circumstance will lead to an acquittal, Yanor v. The State (1965) ANLR (Reprint) 199; Bello v. Police (1956) SCNLR 113; Odu and Anr v. The State (2001) 5 SCNJ 115, 120; (2001) 10 NWLR (pt. 772) 668. However, the said defence would be unavailing in a situation, as in this case, where the accused person raised it during the trial, Hassan v. State (2001) 6 NWLR (pt 709) 305.

Now, to the question of alibi. As pointed out earlier, the trial Court found at pages 89 -90 of the record, that:
....this defence of alibi that he went to the market on the date of the incident was raised for the first time in the witness box in Court, it was not ever contained in Exhibit B...
The best defence and evidence of alibi is one pleaded at the first opportunity (usually to the Police when making a statement) and not at the time of trial...
I, entirely, endorse this view which was affirmed by the lower Court. True, indeed, to be entitled to the beneficent effect of the defence of alibi, an accused person must raise it at the earliest opportunity, Hassan v. The State (2001) 6 NWLR (pt 709) 286, 305, which would, preferably, be in his extra-judicial statement. This is to offer the Police an opportunity either to confirm or confute its availability to the accused person, Ibrahim v. The State (1991) 4 NWLR (pt 186) 399; Nwabueze v. The State (1989) 3 NWLR (pt 86); Ikemson v. The State (1988) 3 NWLR (pt 110) 455.
What is more, the said defence must be unequivocal as to the particulars of his whereabouts and those present with him, Onyegbu v. The State (1995) 4 SCNJ 275, 285-286; Ibrahim v. The State (supra); Balogun v. AG, Ogun State (2002) 6 NWLR (pt 763) 512, 535-536; Eke v. The State (2011) LPELR – 1133 (SC) 16. It is only where an accused person, such as the appellant, raised the said defence at the earliest opportunity without any ambiguity that a burden is cast on the Prosecution to investigate it, Eyisi v. State (2000) 4 NSCQR 60 and to disprove same, Eke v. The State (supra).

The defences of alibi and the provocation are inconsistent and mutually exclusive. The accused person who pleads alibi can only be understood to say that he, being elsewhere and not at the scene of crime, knows nothing of the facts constituting the alleged offence. In effect he denies both the actus reus and the mens rea, particularly the actus reus. On the other hand, the defence of provocation clearly admits the actus reus, but not the mens rea. Provocation merely denies criminal responsibility. I think the passage in Lord Simon's opinion inHOLMES V. DPP (1946) 2 ALL E. R. 124 best illustrates this point and I here below reproduce it –
The whole doctrine relating to provocation depends on the fact that it causes, or may cause, a sudden temporary loss of self-control whereby malice, which is the foundation of an intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm is negative.
It is logical therefore to suggest or propound that the man who pleads alibi and denies stoutly "ever being at the scene" of crime cannot, at the same time, be heard to plead provocation as his defence to the same offence. With the plea of alibi there is no evidence on which the defences of provocation and self-defence can be pegged.

It is logical therefore to suggest or propound that the man who pleads alibi and denies stoutly "ever being at the scene" of crime cannot, at the same time, be heard to plead provocation as his defence to the same offence. With the plea of alibi there is no evidence on which the defences of provocation and self-defence can be pegged.

I wish to add that I do not endorse the Court of Appeals postulation in Adisa v. State (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 168) 490 that wherein the defence of alibi is raised during trial, the prosecution can ask for adjournment in order to investigate the alibi. What then happens to a holding by a Court of trial that the alibi raised during trial is an afterthought? And as happened in this case where the alibi was raised 11 years after the commission of the offence during trial? For the alibi to be considered the accused has to raise the defence timeously particularly at the time he is making his statement to the police to enable them to investigate the alibi to ascertain its veracity with a view to exculpating the accused from the crime allegedly committed. See Ikemson v. State (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 110) 455 at 464: Ozaki v. State (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 124) 92.

However, where a defence of alibi is successfully raised, the result is an acquittal of the accused relying on the defence. The defence is said to be a combined defence of lack of act and mens rea. That is, that he was not present at the scene of the crime and was therefore neither in a position to have committed the offence nor participated in its commission. See; Benson Ukwunnenyi & Anor Vs. The State (1989) NWLR (Pt.114) 131; (1989) LPELR 3353 (SC).

What is the meaning of alibi? It is a defence where a suspect or an accused claims that at the time when the offence or crime with which he is charged was committed he was elsewhere. It is the law that the police must be notified of the suspect's intention to raise it as a defence. Normally, the defence must be raised at the earliest opportunity by the suspect in answer to a charge by the police, at the investigation stage, to enable the police establish the truth or falsity of the claim. See;R. Vs. Lewis (1969) 2 Q.B1; Adio Vs The State (1986) 3 NWLR 714; (1986) 2 N.S.C.C. 815; Adedeji Vs. The State (1971) 1 All NLR 75; Danlami Ozaki & Anor Vs. The State (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt.124) 92; (1990) 1 All NLR 94; (1990) LPELR 2888 (sc).
In other words, alibi means, when a person charged with an offence says that he was not at the scene of the crime at the time the alleged offence was committed. That he was indeed somewhere else, as a result, he was not and could not be the one who committed the offence. See; Okosi Vs. The State (1989) 1 CLRN 29. Alibi is a defence, based on the physical impossibility of a suspect's guilt by placing him in a location other than the scene of the crime at the particular time. It is the fact or state of having been elsewhere when an offence was committed. See; Akeem Agboola Vs. The State (2013) All FWLR (Pt.704) 139; (2013) 54 NSCQR (Pt.11) 1162; Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition,page 84 .

Alibi is Latin for "elsewhere"' It also means the fact or state of having been elsewhere when an offence was committed- Black's Law Dictionary 8th Ed". 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, and it is trite that once the defence is properly raised by the Accused during investigations, it is the duty of the Police to investigate it. However, it is the duty of an Accused who relies on an alibi, to give details there of to enable the Police investigate it. His duty, involves letting the Police know at the earliest opportunity, where he was at the material time – see Shehu V. State (supra), wherein this Court held that the defence is complete, once the Accused Person discloses to the Police, his whereabouts, without more, at the time of the commission of the crime. But it is not in all cases that the failure to investigate an alibi will be fatal. Once there is evidence that the Accused committed the offence, this raises the question of credibility to wit; whether the evidence is believable and if believed, the alibi is logically demolished or fizzles into thin air and so doomed – see Hausa V. State (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt, 350) 281 SC and Ntam V. State (supra). What is more, to be worthy of investigation, the defence of alibi must be precise and specific in terms of the place that the Accused was and person(s) that he was with, and possibly what he was doing at the material time – see Ochemaje v. State (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1109) 57, wherein Tobi, JSC, said: It is not the law that the Police should be involved in a wild goose chase for the whereabouts of the Accused person at the time the crime was committed. No. That is not the function or role of the Police. The Accused must give specific particulars of where he was at the material time to enable the Police move straight to that place to carry out the investigation required...

First is the issue of alibi raised by the appellant in his evidence. The said alibi was raised by the appellant at pages 103 to 104, when appellant was giving evidence. Indeed as held by the lower Court from pages 151 to 152, a defense of alibi must be brought timeously to the attention of the police, to afford ample time to investigate. The position of the law is that where an accused person intends to raise a defense of alibi, he must do so at the earliest opportunity usually during the course of investigation, so that the police would investigate the defense as they are wont to do so as to uncover the truth of the assertion. However it is the further position of the law that the ipse dixit of the accused person is not sufficient proof of his alibi, for he must go further to furnish the police with sufficient particulars of his whereabouts as at the time of the commission of the offence alleged. See Akindipe vs. The State (2016) 15 NWLR (pt. 1536) 470 @ 502; State vs. Ekanem (2017) 4 NWLR (pt. 1554) 85 @ 107; Esangbedo vs. State (1989) 4 NWLR (pt. 113) 57, Ndidi vs The State (2007) 13 NWLR (pt. 1052) 633.

For emphasis, it has to be said that it is not in all cases where the police fails to investigate an alibi such as the case in hand where the alibi was raised timeously that such failure would be taken to have a fatal effect on the case of the prosecution. This is so when the evidence proffered by the prosecution is such that the accused was well at the scene of crime at the material time. In the case at hand the evidence of PW1 was credible and strong enough to destroy the alibi raised by the appellant and so the fact that the alibi was not investigated is of no moment. See Ayan v The State (2013) 55 NSCQR 228-229; Gachi v State (1965) NMLR 333; Odidika v State (1977) 2 SC 21; Yanor v State (1965) All NLR 193; Salami v State (1988) 3 NWLR (pt.85) 670 at 677.

Indeed the defence of alibi is a magic wand when raised and investigated thereof proves it to be true. It automatically exculpates the accused from blame when the alibi iestablished. I rely on Mohammed v The State(2015) 243 LRCN 122 at 148; Egwumi v The State (2013) 220 LRCN (Pt.1) 224; Egbirika v The State (2014) 227 LRCN 1.

The word "alibi", is a latin word which means, the appellant was elsewhere and NOT at the scene the crime was allegedly committed. See Sowemimo v State (2004)11NWLR (pt.885)515; Aiguoreghian v State (2004)3 NWLR (pt.860)367. Ordinarily, when such defence is raised at the earliest opportunity, the prosecution has a duty to investigate and check the details of the "alibi' and verify his assertion. But if the accused fails to furnish the particulars of his whereabouts, then that failure would weaken his defence. See Sowemimo V State (supra).
However, in a situation where an accused person is unequivocally pinned to the locus in quo as in this instant case, as one of the accused persons who committed the offence, then the defence of alibi would not avail him.

The law is that it is not enough for an accused to raise the defence of Alibi at the stage of trial. He must give adequate particulars of his whereabouts at the time of the commission of the offence to assist the police to make a meaningful investigation of the Alibi. If the Appellant said he was in a particular place, he must give a lead as to the specific place, names and/or addresses of who to contact and the relevant period he was away from the scene of crime.
Therefore, where an accused person raises an Alibi, the defence must be unequivocal and must be given during investigation and not during the hearing of the defence. The mere allegation that he was not at the scene is not enough, the accused person must give some explanation of where he was, and who could know of his presence at that other place at the material time of the commission of the offence in question. See:- YANOR VS THE STATE (1965) 1 All NLR 193, and OBIODE VS THE STATE (1970) 1 All NLR 35.

It must be timeously raised as soon as the accused who seeks to rely on the defence of alibi is arrested and the offence for which he is charged is explained to him.

Alibi is a defence based on the physical impossibility of a defendant's guilt by placing him in a location other than the scene of the crime at the relevant time. Where an accused person raises the defence of alibi, such defence should be investigated and must be controverted by reliable or positive evidence by the prosecution. However for the prosecution to be saddled with that responsibility, the defence must be raised timeously, that is, as soon as the accused is arrested and the offence for which he is arrested is explained to him. Not only is accused required to raise the defence timeously, he must provide sufficient particulars of where he was and with whom he was in order to allow for proper investigation by the prosecution. In the instant case the Appellant first raised the defence of alibi during his evidence in chief before the Court, after he had admitted the offence for which he was charged in his extra-judicial statement before the police. What consideration was the Court expected to accord to such a defence that was required to be investigated by the prosecution if it had been raised early. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to state how miscarriage of justice was occasioned against the appellant by the failure of the trial Court to consider a belated and unsubstantiated defence of alibi. The lower Court was right in not considering the defence of alibi which was a product of afterthought. See Atta v State (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt. 120) 190; Yanor v State(1965) NWLR 337; Salami v State (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 85) 670.

When a suspect arrested for committing a crime, e.g armed robbery, Murder etc and he says he has an alibi, what he is saying is that he was nowhere near or at the scene of the crime when it was committed. He is saying that he was elsewhere, so he could not have committed the offence. The onus of establishing an alibi is on the suspect since it is within his personal knowledge. The suspect should at the first opportunity he has to write a statement raise the defence of alibi. An alibi should be very detailed on where he was at the time the offence was committed. He should give the names of people he was with, their addresses e.t.c.
A detailed alibi is mandatory since a plea of alibi is demolished if that prosecution leads sufficient evidence to fix the suspect at the scene of crime at the time in question. An alibi is established not on its proof beyond reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probabilities. See Osuagwu v State (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 672) p. 1605.
Mohammed v State (2015) 2 SC (Pt. i) p. 163 Uche v State (2015) 4-5 SC (Pt. ii) p.140 Sani v State (2015) 6-7 SC (Pt. ii) p. 1.

I agree with the learned counsel for the Respondent that Exhibit B which is the extra-judicial statement of the Appellant has no iota of evidence of Alibi but only corroborates the whereabout of the Appellant as testified by PW.4 and Pw.1 to be at the scene of the crime (locus criminis). In NDUKWE VS THE STATE NNCC at 4.
This Court per M. S. Muntaka-Coomassie, JSC, (as he then was) stated that:-
"In the case at hand, the evidence of PW1 and 2 who knew the accused person closely identified the accused at the scene of this dastardly Act. Their evidence is reliable. The defence failed to produce evidence to demolish that of the prosecution even though he got opportunity to do so, by calling witness or witnesses to support him."
See:- also OMOTOLA VS THE STATE (2009) 4 NCC 89 LAWRENCE OGUNO VS THE STATE (2012) 7 NCC Pg 419 SALE DAGAYYA VS THE STATE (2005) 1 N.C.C 532 at 542-543.

The law is that it is not enough for an accused to raise the defence of Alibi at the stage of trial. He must give adequate particulars of his whereabouts at the time of the commission of the offence to assist the police to make a meaningful investigation of the Alibi. If the Appellant said he was in a particular place, he must give a lead as to the specific place, names and/or addresses of who to contact and the relevant period he was away from the scene of crime.
Therefore, where an accused person raises an Alibi, the defence must be unequivocal and must be given during investigation and not during the hearing of the defence. The mere allegation that he was not at the scene is not enough, the accused person must give some explanation of where he was, and who could know of his presence at that other place at the material time of the commission of the offence in question. See:- YANOR VS THE STATE (1965) 1 AII NLR 193, and OBIODE VS THE STATE (1970) 1 AII NLR 35.

The law is settled that once an accused person is fixed at the scene of a crime by credible evidence, his defence of alibi crumbles. See: Ebenehi v. The State (2009) 6 NWLR (pt. 1138) 431 @ 448A: Ndukwe V. The State (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt.1139) 43 @ 82 E F; 92 – 93 H – A.

Although it is the duty of the prosecution to check on a statement of alibi by an accused person and disprove the alibi, if the prosecution adduces sufficient and accepted evidence to fix a person at the scene of crime at the material time, his alibi is thereby logically and physically demolished and that would be enough to render such plea ineffective as a defence. In other words where there is strong and credible evidence which fixed a person at the scene of the crime, his defence of alibi must fail. See: Ebenechi v. The State (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1138) 431 at 448; Ndukwe v. State (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt.1139) 43.

From the pieces of evidence above one is reminded that the law is now trite that where there is strong and credible evidence which fix an accused person at the scene of crime, the defence of alibi automatically fails. That is where the Court has found as a fact that the evidence of the prosecution positively, unequivocally and irresistibly point to the guilt of an accused, the defence of alibi becomes useless. See Ebenhi v The State(2009) 6 NWLR (pt. 1138) 431 at 448; Ndukwe v. State (2009) 7 NWLR (pt. 1139) 43 at 82.

Whenever an accused person puts up a plea of alibi, it is his duty to furnish the prosecution with the full particulars of the alibi. He must furnish his whereabouts and those present with him at the material time of the incident. The duty is then shifted to the prosecution to investigate and disprove same. See: Gachi v. State (1965) NMLR 333. Yanor v. State (1965) NMLR 337; Odu v. State (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt. 722) 668 and Shehu v. State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1195) 112.

As this Court held in Obakpolor V The State “It is no proof of alibi for an accused person merely to assert, as in this case, that he was not at the scene of crime and could not have been there because he was elsewhere. He must lead credible evidence. The evidential burden of adducing evidence to support a defence of alibi is on the accused person raising such defence because the facts upon which the defence of alibi rests are facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused person raising such a defence”. EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C

That the defence of alibi put forward by the respondent was not sustainable as the evidence proffered by the prosecution placed him at the scene of crime and at all times material. He cited Agbiti v Nigerian Navy (2011) LPELR-2944 (SC) P.53; Hambe & Anor v. Hueze & Ors (2001) 4 NWLR (pt.703) 372 etc. Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili, J.S.C.

The law is settled that where a defendant’s presence is credibly and unequivocally fixed at the time and place of a crime, his defense of alibi must fail. See Iheanu-Ekwu Ndukwe v. The State (2009) 2 SCM 147 at 176-177, Oluwasegun Akereyeli v. The State (2015) LPELR -25811 (CA) Victor v. State (2013) LPELR -20749 (SC). Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, J.S.C.

I want to say that for the sake of emphasis that even where the police were unable or refused to investigate the alibi of the Defend, acquittal would depend on the overall circumstances of the case. Where there is doubt in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, failure to investigate the alibi to clear any doubt in the defence of the Defendant becomes the final lid in the coffin of whatever case the prosecution intended to make and the prosecution’s case would be buried. Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, J.S.C

On the defence of alibi raised by the Appellant, apart from the fact that the Appellant himself has watered it down, it cannot stand where there is direct evidence countering it, even when it is not investigated. What will be investigated is what is not certain but what is certain needs no further investigation. It is settled law that where an accused raised a defence that his alibi was not investigated, he can still be convicted if there is stronger and credible evidence before the Court which falsified the alibi. See Per SYLVESTER UMARU ONU, JSC, in AIGUOREGHIAN & ANOR V.
STATE (2004) LPELR- 270(SC) (PP. 20-21, PARAS. G-C). This issue is definitely resolved against the Appellant. UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C.
PROVING BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT ON THE ISSUE OF IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE On the issue of identification evidence, the law is trite that whenever a Court is faced with identific ation evidence, it must ensure and be satisfied that the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person before the Court was the person who actually committed the offence with which he is charged. There ought not to be a doubtful identification of a culprit.
It must also be stated that Identification Parade is not mandatory for identification in all cases where there has been a momentary encounter with a victim of a crime, especially where there are other pieces of evidence leading conclusively to the identity of the perpetrator of the offence, Aliyu v The State [2007] All FWLR (pt. 388) 1123; Alabi v The State [1993] 7 NWLR (pt. 307) 511; Ebenezer v The State [2020] 8 NWLR (pt. 1727) 573. UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C.

The word “alibi” is derived from Latin and it simply means “elsewhere”. In our criminal jurisprudence, when an accused person sets up a defence of alibi, he is in essence saying that he was elsewhere when an offence has been committed or he was not at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. The defence is based on physical impossibility to place the accused person who was elsewhere at the scene of the crime at the time of the doing of the act constituting the crime. Once it is properly raised by the accused at the investigation stage, the police is duty bound to investigate same.
See SANMI V. STATE (2019) 13 NWLR (PT 1690) 554, OPEYEMI V. STATE (2019) 17 NWLR (PT 1702) 403, SALE V. STATE (2020) 1 NWLR (PT 1705) 205 and HARUNA V. KANO STATE (2020) LPELR 50869. The defence of alibi with its exculpating factor must be timeously raised and the accused must give a detailed explanation of his whereabouts at the relevant time. In EBRE V.
STATE (2001) 12 NWLR (PT 728) 617, Achike, JSC held that:- “We must hasten to state quite clearly that the defence of alibi is not readily conceded with levity to the accused person seeking that when properly established it has the far reaching finality of exculpating the accused person from complete criminal responsibility.
To take advantage of this defence, the accused person must give a particularization of his whereabouts on the crucial day of the offence which will include not just the specific place(s) where he was, but additionally, the people in whose company he was and what, if any transpired at the said time and place(s). Obviously, such comprehensive information furnished by the accused person must, unquestionably be capable of investigation by the police should they wish to do so. A fair minded Tribunal would have no other option than to exercise its discretion of doubt in favour of the accused person.
Furthermore, such defence must be timeously brought to the attention of the police by the accused person, preferably in his extra-judicial statement to afford the police an ample time to carry out its investigation. For the accused person to raise the defence while testifying at his trial is to deliberately deny the prosecution its right and duty to investigate the defence.
Such a ploy cannot avail the accused, conversely, where the defence of alibi consists of vague accounts which are simply placed before the Court as mere make believe of plea of that defence, and which are completely devoid of material facts working of investigation, the police in the circumstance would least be expected to embark on a wild goose chase, all in the name of investigation. In such a situation, the Court would have nothing before it to consider by way of alibi.
For example where the accused person in his extra-judicial statement stated that either that he was not in town on that day or that he travelled to a neighbouring town or village and nothing more, no reasonable person would think that a serious plea of alibi has been made out. In other words, a general defence of alibi without sufficient facts to warrant an investigation is clearly porous and vague and cannot avail an accused person.” PER LAMIDO, J.C.A.

Alibi, simply put, means “elsewhere”. By the defense, the accused person claims or says that he was in a place other than the scene of crime. It is a defense based on the physical impossibility of a defendant’s guilt by placing the defendant in a location other than the scene of the crime at the relevant time. See Ochemaje v. State (2008) All FWLR (Pt.435) 1661, (2008) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1109) 57. ​Let me state here that it is not the law that, when a plea of alibi is raised, the accused person is free from the allegation . JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

The immutable position of our criminal jurisprudence is that the plea of alibi is defeated where evidence abounds that fixes an accused person not only at the scene of crime but also establishes the fact of his participation in the crime . JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

Indeed the prosecution placed before the trial Court direct and cogent evidence of the witnesses alongside exhibits which point directly to the Appellant as the person who committed the offence.
The defence of the victim being heard crying from neighbour’s house the previous day did not in any way create doubt in the minds of the lower Courts and this is because it is not a defence to the commission of the crime even though the Appellant’s Counsel attempted to equate same as alibi. The word simply means the defendant was somewhere else when the offence was committed but this is not the position in this case as Appellant was fixed at the scene of crime and as such the defence must collapse.
In Ezekwe v State (2018) LPELR-44392 (SC), this apex Court held thus:- “The plea of alibi runs on some very well-known principles.
That is: (1) The Defendant who raises alibi does so to discharge the evidential burden he has to cast doubt on the prosecution’s case, It is discharged on a preponderance of evidence, that is on a balance of probabilities: OZAKI v THE STATE (1990)1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.124) 92 at 110 (2) The Defendant who intends to set up the defence, or who sets up the defence of alibi is enjoined to give sufficient details or particulars of his whereabouts in order to enable the Police or the prosecution investigate it with the view to either affirm it or debunk it. PER MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

The duty on the Defendant to establish his alibi lies in the fact that the burden of proving the fact peculiarly within his knowledge lies on him by dint of Sections 140, 131, & 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Additionally, fair hearing, particularly audi alteram partem, demands of him not to take the prosecution by surprise, hence the duty on him, within a reasonable time, to give particulars of his whereabouts. Failure of the Defendant to give particulars of alibi is fatal to the defence; OKAI v THE STATE (1989) 2 S.C.N.J. 183 at 191 . PER MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

When validly raised with sufficient particulars of the whereabouts of the Defendant, alibi obligates or makes it incumbent on the prosecution to investigate it with the view of either validating it or debunking it: BALOGUN v. A.G OGUN STATE (supra) alibi, if successfully pleaded and established, is an absolute or complete defence that negatives both the actus reus and the mens rea of the offence. It does entitle the Defendant to acquittal and order of discharge: UKWUNNENYI v. THE STATE (supra). The defence of alibi is not established by mere waving it to the trial Court.
It is not sacrosanct Either. This Court in DAGAYYA v. THE STATE (2006) NWLR (Pt.980) 637; (2006) ALL F.W.L.R. (Pt.308) 1212, cited by the Appellant’s counsel had stated the law on alibi clearly thus: the defence of alibi crumbles the moment the prosecution gives superior evidence fixing the Defendant not only to the scene of the crime, but also to his commission of the offence. ” Per EKO, JSC (Pp. 7-9, para- D) underlined for emphasis. PER MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

On the defence of Alibi, it istrite that Alibi is a defence based on the physical impossibility of a defendant’s guilt by placing him in a location other than the scene of the crime at the relevant time. Where an accused person raises the defence of alibi, such defence should be investigated and must be controverted by reliable or positive evidence by the Prosecution. However, for the Prosecution to be saddled with that responsibility, the defence must be raised timeously, that is, as soon as the accused is arrested and the offence for which he is arrested is explained to him.
Not only is accused required to raise the defence timeously, he must provide sufficient particulars of where he was and with whom he was in order to allow for proper investigation by the Prosecution. PER ABDU ABOKI, J.S.C.

Alibi, as is now firmly established means “somewhere else.” That is to say that the person accused of committing a particular crime was somewhere else when the crime was committed. See OZAKI VS THE STATE (1990) 1 NWLR (PT.124) 92; GACHI VS THE STATE (1965) NWLR 333; SHEHU VS THE STATE (2010) LPELR-3041 (SC) ADIO VS THE STATE (1986) 3 NWLR 714; ADEDEJI VS THE STATE (1971) 1 All NLR 75. OKOSI VS THE STATE (1989) CLRN 29 at 48; OLATINWO VS THE STATE (2013) 8 NWLR (PT. 355) 126. SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.S.C
An accused person who pleads alibi must of necessity furnish sufficient particulars of some. He must therefore explain his whereabout and those present with him at the material time. He must not raise the defence at large but must give adequate particulars of his whereabout at the time of the commission of the offence to assist the police to make a meaningful investigation of the Alibi. See FABIAN NWATURUOCHA VS THE STATE (2011) 6 NWLR (PT.1242) 170.
However, where the evidence of prosecution witnesses specifically and unequivocally pins down an accused person to the scene of the crime and says that he committed the offence, failure to investigate the Alibi by the police will not result in an acquittal of the accused person. In other words, if the prosecution adduces sufficient evidence to fix the accused at the scene of the crime at the material time, notwithstanding his claim that he was somewhere else, surely his alibi is thereby logically and physically demolished.
See MICHAEL HAUSA VS THE STATE (1994) 7-8 SCNJ 144; EMMANUEL EBRI VS THE STATE (2004) 5 SCM. 48. SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.S.C

My Lords, as it is now well known, alibi is a Latin word, it is a combination of two words “alias” and “ibi” or “ubi’ meaning “other” and “there” or “where” respectively. In English usage, according the Black’s Law Dictionary, the word alibi is defined as “elsewhere”. See AZEEZ V STATE (2008) ALL FWLR (PT.424) 1423 at 1447 and MOHAMMED V THE STATE (2015) ALL FWLR (pt.782) 1658. Thus, where an appellant or accused person raises the defence of alibi, he is in turn saying that he was at another place when the offence was committed and could not possibly to have committed the offence.
It is the impossibility of a person being present at two different places at the same time that gives the defense its efficacy provided it is established. SeeCHUKWUMA EZEKWE v. THE STATE SCER [2018] SC.73/2013, (2018) LPELR 44392 SC, (2018) 3-4 SC (pt 1) P. 1442; Adekunle v State [1989] 5 NWLR (Pt. 123) 505, 513; Patrick Njovens and Ors v The State [1973] 1 NWLR (sic) 331. See also Obakpolo v. State [1991] 1 SCNJ 9; Attah v State [2010] Vol. 3 (pt. iv) MJSC 139; Njovens v. The State [1973] 5 SC 17; Afolalu v. State [2010] All FWLR (pt.538) 812; Michael Hausa v.
The State [1994] 6 NWLR (Pt.350) 281; Peter v. The State [1997] 3 NWLR (Pt.496) 625; Omotola and Ors v. The State (2009) 7 NWLR (pt.1139) 148. PER NWEZE, J.S.C.

The duty of Court to consider the alibi depends on how properly it was raised. If it was raised properly, the Court is under a duty to consider it. It is noteworthy that, the defence of alibi is not meant to be used as ploy to send the police on a wide goose chase or divert attention of the police.
Although it is the duty of the Prosecution to check on or investigate a statement of alibi by the accused person and disprove it, there is no inflexible or invariable way of doing this. ​If the Prosecution succeeds in fixing the appellant at the scene of the crime by adducing sufficient acceptable evidence, his alibi is thereby logically and physical demolished and that would be enough to render such plea ineffective as a defence. See Archibong v State [2006] ALL FWLR (pt 323) 1747 at 1785, Sunday v The State (2011) ALL FWLR (pt. 568) 922; UCHE V THE STATE [2015] ALL FWLR (pt.796) 431.
In other words, where the piece of evidence at the disposal of the Prosecution, either real or circumstantial or both, are so compelling that the accused person could not have been elsewhere than at the scene of the incident, in this circumstance, there is no need for the prosecution to carry on a goose chase investigation, in order to discharge the burden of plea of alibi. See OLAIYA V THE STATE [2010] ALL FWLR (pt.514). PER NWEZE, J.S.C.