WHEN IDENTIFICATION PARADE IS ESSENTIAL

IDENTIFICATION PARADE MEANS

Alabi v. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.307) Pg. 511 at 527 per Onu, J.S.C as follows: “Identification parade means a group of persons of identical size and common physical features assembled by the police from whom a witness identifies a suspect or suspects unaided and untutored.”

IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED PERSON IS ONE OF FACT

Proper identification of the accused person as the person who took part in the commission of the alleged crime, is one of fact. See OKOSI v. THE STATE (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 100) 642; STATE v. AIBANGBEE & ANOR. (1988) 7 SCNJ 128.

— E. Eko, JSC. Kekong v State (2017) – SC.884/2014

IDENTIFICATION PARADE HAS ITS WEAKNESSES; DEFENCE COUNSEL MUST BE WARY TO IMPUGN IDENTIFICATION

The learned Appellants counsel seems to hold a strong impression, though erroneous, that without a proper identification parade the identification of the Appellant by the PW1 was faulty. There is nothing magical about identification parade. It also has human errors associated with it. And it is for this reason that Oputa, JSC, stated in lKEMSON v. THE STATE (supra) at page 478 that identification parade itself, is not foolproof nor is it a guarantee against the usual errors of observation, errors of recognition or errors of reconstruction. His Lordship in the judgment cited two cases: of The Trial of Adolf Beck ed E.R. Watson (Edinburgh 1924); and Walter Graham Rowland (1947) 32 C.R. App. 29. There was identification parade in the Rowland’s case. Rowland was identified by three independent witnesses as the murderer. However, subsequently Mr Ware confessed that he, and not Rowland, was the actual murderer. Identification of offenders, whether through witness(es) or identification parade: because of its importance to criminal law justice or jurisprudence; trial Courts are admonished to be satisfied that the evidence of identification proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused before the Court was the person who actually committed the alleged offence. It is the duty of the defence counsel, through purposeful cross-examination, to cast reasonable doubt on the witness’s identification of the accused person by exposing errors of observation, of recognition, of resemblance etc. See Oputa, JSC in IKEMSON v. STATE (supra) at page 479.

— E. Eko, JSC. Kekong v State (2017) – SC.884/2014

FACTORS BEFORE PLACING RELIANCE ON IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

The correct identification of the perpetrator of a crime is therefore crucial, particularly where the accused person was not arrested at the scene of crime, and the victim did not know him prior to the incident. In order to avoid a situation of mistaken identity, the Court will consider certain factors before placing reliance on the identification evidence, such as: (a) The circumstances in which the eye witness saw the accused; (b) The length of time the witness saw the accused; (c) The lighting conditions at the crime scene; and (d) The opportunity of close observation of the defendant by the witness. (e) The description of the accused given to the Police soon after the incident. See: Ikemson Vs The State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.110) 455 @ 478 and 479; Ochiba Vs The State (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 608) 849 @ 871; Thomas Vs The State (2017) LPELR 41735 (SC) © 24-25 D-A.

— E. Eko, JSC. Lawali v State (2019) – SC.272/2017