By Oseme Peremene Anthony, Esq.
“There was no evidence before the trial Court that any identification parade was conducted in respect of an armed robbery offence that was allegedly committed on 24/12/2002 along Charanchi/Ganuwa Road but was only reported to the Police about 12 days after the robbery.
With all the lapses in the prosecution’s evidence which the lower Court highlighted, the decision of this Court in Abudu v. State (1985) 1 NWLR (pt. 1) 55 that where an eye witness fails to mention at earliest opportunity the name or names of the person or persons seen committing a crime, a Court must be careful in accepting his evidence given later implicating the person or persons charged, unless satisfactory explanation is given, readily comes to mind and applies mutatis mutandis to the facts in this case…
There is a lingering doubt as to whether PW4 informed the Police that the respondent was one of the robbers who attacked him on 24 December, 2002 and dispossessed him of the N175,000.00 he was carrying and since no identification parade was carried out, the respondent was not properly identified as one of those who robbed PW4.” – State v. Muhammad (2019) LPELR-SC.240/2015 per Aka’Ahs, JSC (Pp.14-16, Paras.F-B)