Superior Evidence Overturns Alibi

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

On Friday, the 4th day of July, 2025

Before Their Lordships

Mohammed Lawal Garba

Adamu Jauro

Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein

Obande Festus Ogbuinya

Abubakar Sadiq Umar

Justices, Supreme Court

SC/1008/2017

Between

SOLOMON IBORO SANDY                                                                 APPELLANT

                                                 And

THE  STATE                                                                                           RESPONDENT

(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein, JSC)

Facts

The Appellant was charged before the High Court of Akwa Ibom State for the offence of murder under Section 326(1) of the Criminal Code, Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000. The Appellant was accused of murdering Godwin George Udofia on 1 June 2014. After pleading not guilty, the Respondent presented four witnesses and submitted the Appellant’s statement to the Police, the Post‑Mortem Examination Form and Medical Report on the deceased, and the Police Investigation Report dated 25 08 2014 as Exhibits A, B‑B3, and C respectively.

The Appellant testified in his defence and called three witnesses. A cash receipt issued in favour of the Appellant on 1 June 2014 was presented by the Appellant’s third witness – DW4. At the close of trial, after hearing the counsel for both parties, the trial court found the Appellant guilty and sentenced him to death by hanging.

The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the trial court’s decision and dismissed the appeal. The Appellant then filed a further appeal with the Supreme Court.

Issues for Determination

The Supreme Court adopted the issues formulated by counsel for the Appellant, with slight modifications, as follows:

1. Whether the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing was breached when he adopted Exhibit A without it being interpreted to him.

2. Whether the Appellant’s defence of alibi should have been sustained if the evidence of DW3 and DW4 had not been discounted.

3. Whether the murder charge against the Appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Arguments

On the first issue, counsel for the Appellant argued that the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing was breached because he was misled into adopting Exhibit A, which the prosecution presented as the Appellant’s extrajudicial statement, without the statement first being interpreted to the illiterate Appellant. Counsel also contended that the Appellant was not given the opportunity to deny having made Exhibit A before adopting it at the trial court, as it was not interpreted to him to enable him to verify the content.

Conversely, counsel for the Respondent argued that the Appellant failed to object to the admissibility of Exhibit A when it was tendered, therefore it was assumed that he accepted it. Counsel further submitted that Exhibit A was not the basis of the conviction; instead, the eyewitness testimony of PW1, corroborated by PW2 and PW3, was sufficient. The Respondent’s counsel concluded that PW1’s evidence alone was enough to convict the Appellant without reliance on Exhibit A.

On the second issue, the Appellant’s counsel maintained that the Appellant’s defence of alibi was established by the uncontroverted evidence of DW3 and should have been sustained, but the evidence was discounted, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

In reply, counsel for the Respondent argued that PW1, an eyewitness, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant was at the scene of the crime, overriding the Appellant’s alibi.

On the third issue, counsel for the Appellant claimed that the Respondent failed to prove the murder charge beyond reasonable doubt, that the prosecution did not submit the deceased’s statement because it may be exculpatory, and that the other prosecution witnesses, apart from PW1, provided hearsay evidence that the trial court should not have relied upon.

Responding, counsel for the Respondent asserted that all elements of the murder offence were established against the Appellant, that there was no dispute over the deceased’s death, and that the prosecution witnesses and Exhibits B–B3 all proved that the Appellant killed the deceased.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

Regarding the first issue, the Apex Court held that a party to judicial proceedings must be consistent in his allegation, claim or defence. The Supreme Court further held that an objection to the admissibility of an extrajudicial statement must be raised at the time it is tendered, and a party who consents to a document being admitted in evidence cannot later rescind that consent. The Court cited Section 169 of the Evidence Act, 2011, and the doctrine of estoppel by conduct, relying on ORJI v FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2019) LPELR‑46534(SC).

The Court found that, based on the trial record, when the prosecution counsel sought to tender Exhibit A, the Appellant’s counsel unequivocally stated that they were not objecting to its admissibility. The Court held that the Appellant, represented by counsel throughout the trial, could not be said to have been misled or prejudiced by the fact that the content of Exhibit A was not read or interpreted to him, as he had not raised any objection when it was tendered. The Court concluded that the Appellant was afforded all opportunities to defend himself, including the right to object to any evidence, and therefore his claim of a denied fair hearing was unfounded.

On the second issue, the Supreme Court held that the basis of an alibi defence is the physical impossibility of a person being at more than one place at a time; thus, an alibi must account for the accused’s whereabouts at the time of the offence and eliminate the possibility of the accused being present at the scene. The Court further held that the alibi collapses once there is superior, credible evidence fixing the accused at the scene. The Court relied on its earlier decisions in OKERE v IGP (2021) 5 NWLR (PT. 1770) 537 and IBRAHIM v COP (2020) 15 NWLR (PT. 1746) 122.

The Court noted that, although the Appellant claimed to have been at Edyson Hotel when the offence was committed, the Police Investigation Report – Exhibit C showed that he only checked in at the hotel around 9 pm on that day, whereas his whereabouts at 7 pm, when the offence occurred, were unaccounted for. The Court further held that PW1’s credible eyewitness account of seeing the deceased being brutally attacked by the Appellant with an axe conclusively neutralised the Appellant’s alibi. The Court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant was at the locus criminis.

On the third issue, the Court held that for the prosecution to establish murder, it must prove beyond reasonable doubt that: (i) the deceased died; (ii) the death was caused by the accused’s act; and (iii) the accused’s act was intentional or carried out with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was a probable consequence. The Court relied on TINA OKORODUDU v THE STATE (2024) 12 NWLR (PT. 1951) 111.

The Court observed that there was no dispute that the deceased died on 1 June 2014, satisfying the first element. The direct eyewitness testimony of PW1, the deceased’s brother, describing the attack with an axe, was consistent with Exhibits B1‑B3, the post‑mortem documents indicating a head injury from an axe. The Court held that PW1’s evidence alone was sufficient to establish the conviction.

Regarding the third element, the Court held that a sane person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequence of his action. The evidence showed that the Appellant’s violent attack was motivated by a desire to avenge an earlier clash between the deceased and the Appellant’s brother. Hitting an axe on the head of a human being is a violent act that clearly indicates an intention to cause death or grievous harm. The Court found that the Respondent established the offence of murder against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and the Court of Appeal had correctly affirmed the trial court’s conviction.

Appeal Dismissed.

Representation

G. A. Umoh for the

Appellant.

F. J. Itim (Director of Public Prosecutions, Akwa Ibom State Ministry of Justice) for the Respondent.

Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)