Introduction
In criminal law, alibi—a Latin term meaning “elsewhere”—is one of the most potent defences available to an accused person. It rests on the simple yet powerful claim that the accused was not present at the scene of the alleged crime when it occurred. If properly raised and substantiated, the plea of alibi can lead to a complete acquittal. However, the defence is only effective when invoked in accordance with established legal principles.
Nigerian courts have developed clear principles governing how and when the defence of alibi must be raised and the consequences where it is not properly investigated.
Meaning/Definition of Alibi
In MURITALA v. STATE (2021) LPELR-56124(CA), the Court of Appeal explained that:
“…the defence of alibi, in Latin, simply means elsewhere. It is a defence based on the physical impossibility of a defendant’s guilt by placing the defendant in a location other than at the scene of the crime at the relevant time…”
Similarly, in AJA v. STATE (2024) LPELR-62970(SC), the Supreme Court described alibi as a complete defence that, when successfully established, leads to the acquittal of the accused person. The Court observed that:
“Alibi simply means ‘elsewhere’. An accused person raising or relying on the defence of alibi is in effect saying that he was not at the scene of crime when the offence was committed… Consequently, the defence of alibi is an absolute defence. That is, where the defence succeeds, it results in the acquittal of the accused person relying thereon.”
When and How the Defence Should Be Raised
The timing of raising an alibi is crucial. Knowing what to do immediately after arrest can be critical to preserving important defences such as alibi.
The courts have repeatedly emphasized that the defence must be raised timeously, preferably during police investigation, to enable the police verify the claim.
In ORODE v. STATE (2018) LPELR-43788(CA), the Court of Appeal stated that:
“…raising the defence of alibi at the trial is of little or no help to an accused person. Alibi as a defence should be raised at the earliest opportunity and that opportunity is in the interrogation room to enable the police to investigate the alibi…”
Likewise, in OKORI v. STATE (2025) LPELR-81623(CA), the court summarized the settled position of law:
“……. The defence/plea of alibi is primarily based and predicated on and within the personal knowledge of the accused person which he must raise timeously and provide adequate particulars of his whereabout and with whom he was at the material time…….. it is after he has done this that the onus shifts to the Police/Prosecution to investigate his alibi.”
This means that an accused person must not only claim that he was elsewhere but must also provide specific details such as where he was, who he was with, and what transpired at that time.
Burden of Proof in Alibi
The courts have clarified that while the prosecution bears the overall burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the initial evidential burden of establishing an alibi rests on the accused.
In MOHAMMED v. STATE (2025) LPELR-80318(CA), the Court of Appeal held:
“…even where the Prosecution has failed to investigate the Appellant’s alibi, the burden is on the Appellant who asserted the alibi to substantiate same with credible evidence… it is the duty of the appellant putting forward the defence of alibi to adduce evidence to sustain his alibi…”
Once the accused provides sufficient particulars of his whereabouts, the duty shifts to the police or prosecution to investigate and disprove the alibi.
Effect of Failure to Investigate an Alibi
When an accused person raises an alibi early enough and the police fail to investigate, the credibility of the prosecution’s case may be undermined.
In ADAMU v. STATE (2025) LPELR-80319(CA), the Court of Appeal stressed that:
“…….The appellant raised the defence of alibi before the lower Court. The word, alibi, is a Latin language derivative which means “elsewhere”. The defence, which has become common place in our criminal justice system, denotes the physical impossibility of an accused person to be somewhere else and at the same time be at the scene of the crime. It is a complete defence, which if proved in favour of an accused person, exculpates him of any criminal liability. The law places the burden of raising the defence on the accused person and to be disproved by the prosecution. It is settled law that an accused person wishing to take refuge under this all saving defence must raise it timeously, furnish the investigating agencies with sufficient particulars of his whereabouts on the day the crime was committed and the particulars of those with him on that day. Thereafter, the burden shifts to the prosecution to investigate the alibi and affirm or disapprove it. It is destroyed by a contrary evidence fixing an accused person at the scene of the crime. If it is disproved, the defence falls flat and vice versa. In the instant case, the alibi was raised timeously by the Appellant with particulars of where he was on the night of the incident but the police/prosecution failed to investigate the alibi or lead any credible evidence to disprove it. In the presence of the evidence of the alibi which was not disproved by the prosecution, it was wrong for the trial Court to convict the Appellant. This is because a successful plea of alibi is a complete defence to the offence charged.” Per PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, JCA (Pp 27 – 28 Paras A – E)
Similarly, in UDOM v. STATE (2025) LPELR-81556(CA), the court reiterated that the failure of the prosecution to investigate an alibi raised timeously casts serious doubt on the case against the accused.
When the Defence of Alibi Will Fail
The defence of alibi is not automatic; it fails when there is credible and direct evidence placing the accused at the scene of the crime and also where the defence is raised by an accused person for the first time in the witness box.
In ISA v. STATE (2025) LPELR-80699(SC), the Supreme Court observed:
“…where… there is clear and credible evidence placing the Appellant at the scene of the crime, the defence of alibi becomes unsustainable and effectively collapses… 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.”
In the same case of ISA v. STATE (2025) LPELR-80699(SC), the Supreme Court also held thus:
“It is trite that the defence of alibi is a matter that is exclusively within the knowledge of an accused person and thus the burden is always on the accused person to provide at the earliest opportunity the materials or data of where he was at the time of the commission of the crime so as to enable the Police investigate the facts of the defence and the earliest opportunity has been held by the Courts to be in the course of interrogation of the accused person by the Police. Where the defence is raised by an accused person for the first time in the witness box, as in the instant case, it is treated as an afterthought and the failure to investigate it will not, in such circumstances, vitiate the judgment of the lower Court………. 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…” Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JSC (Pp 27 – 29 Paras D – C)
Essential Requirements for a Valid Alibi
From the consistent pronouncements of Nigerian courts, a valid plea of alibi must meet these conditions:
1. Timeliness: It must be raised at the earliest opportunity, preferably in the accused’s statement to the police.
2. Specificity: The accused must give detailed particulars of his location, companions, and activities at the material time.
3. Credibility: The alibi must be consistent and supported by evidence, such as witnesses or documents.
4. Investigability: It must be capable of verification by the police.
5. Rebuttal: The prosecution must investigate and disprove the alibi, failing which reasonable doubt arises.
Relationship Between Alibi and Identification Evidence
Where the prosecution relies on direct and credible identification evidence, the defence of alibi will normally fail because such evidence places the accused at the scene of the crime.
However, where identification evidence is weak or doubtful, an uninvestigated alibi may create reasonable doubt in favour of the accused.
This explains why alibi collapses when identification evidence is strong.
Apart from alibi, Nigerian criminal law recognises other defences that may absolve an accused person of criminal liability, including the defence of insanity, which applies where the accused lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature of the act at the time it was committed.
In certain cases, criminal liability may also be reduced where the accused acted under provocation and lost self-control, a principle frequently examined by Nigerian courts.
Conclusion
The defence of alibi, when properly and promptly raised, can be a decisive shield against criminal liability. However, its success depends on the diligence of the accused in raising it early, the specificity of details provided, and the adequacy of the police investigation.
Ultimately, while an uninvestigated alibi may cast doubt on the prosecution’s case, a vague or belated one is often treated as an afterthought.
Disclaimer:
This publication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to seek professional counsel for guidance on specific legal issues.
If you found this helpful, please share it on social media — it only takes a click.