UGOCHUKWU NGORKA v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IMO STATE
(2014)LCN/6909(CA)
RATIO
WHETHER CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE WILL BE MATERIAL TO AN ISSUE OF FACT
The cardinal principle of law is that inconsistency or contradiction in evidence will be substantial only if such contradiction and in consistencies are material to an issue of fact. In the case of Igbi vs. State (2003) NWLR IPT 648) 169, Ayoola JSC expounded the position of such evidence thus: “Discrepancies or contradictions in the evidence of a witness or witnesses may be said to be material where they go to an issue of fact which must be determined before a proper verdict can be arrived at in a case or where in the circumstances in which they occurred they were such as to cast a doubt on the credibility of the witness or witnesses”. Per UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI (PJ), J.C.A
POSITION OF THE LAW WHERE THE PROSECUTION FAILS TO CALL A VITAL WITNESS
There are plethora of judicial pronouncements both of this court and the Apex Court. In Nwaeze vs. State (1996) 2 NWLR (PT 425) 4 @ 15, the Supreme Court stated the position as follows:
“it is sufficient to say in this connection; that the law imposes no obligation on the prosecution to call a host of witnesses. All the prosecution needs to do is to call enough material witnesses to prove its case and in doing so, it has a discretion in the matter. See Adje vs. The State (1979) 6 – 9 SC 18 @ 28. If the evidence of a witness is very essential to the defence of the accused, it is for the accused to call him. He should not expect the prosecution to call the witness since the prosecution is not expected to perform the function of the prosecution and the function of the defence. See Asariyo vs. The State (1987) 4 NWLR (PT 67) 709; and Ogbodu vs. The State (1987) 2 NWLR (PT 54) 20 in which it was held that the prosecution was not bound to call the son of the Appellant who was present when the crime was committed if the prosecution felt that his evidence was not vital to its case. The defence might call him if it desired, nothing stopped it from doing so.” See Eze vs. State (2013) LP ELR CA/OW/2011. It therefore follows that the law does not impose an obligation on the prosecution to call some specific witnesses to prove its case. All it needs do is to call enough material witnesses to prove its case. It does not lie in the mouth of the defence to urge the prosecution to call a particular witness. See the following cases: Olanyinka vs. State (2007) 9 NWLR (PT 040) 561; Nwaeze vs. State (1996) 2 NWLR (PT. 425) 1 @ 15. he question is who is a vital witness? The Supreme Court in State vs. Nnolim (1994) 5 NWLR (PT 345) 394 defines a vital witness as a witness whose evidence may determine a case one way or the other. Failure to call a vital witness for the prosecution is fatal to the prosecution’s case. Per UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI (PJ), J.C.A
