IDENTIFICATION PARADE: WHEN AND WHEN NOT NECESSARY

The necessity of an identification parade depends largely on the circumstances surrounding the identification of the accused person. Nigerian courts have consistently held that an identification parade is not an automatic requirement in every criminal trial; rather, it becomes necessary where there is a genuine doubt as to the identity of the accused and where the witness had no previous opportunity of knowing or seeing the accused before the commission of the offence.

This principle was clearly explained in OSHO V. THE STATE OF EKITI (2026) 7 NWLR (PT. 2042) 381, where the court emphasized that the need for an identification parade is determined by the facts of each case. The court made it clear that an identification parade is required where the identity of the accused is in dispute or where the witness’s ability to recognize the accused is uncertain. However, where the accused is well known to the witness, or where the circumstances of the offence gave the witness sufficient opportunity to observe and recognize the accused, conducting an identification parade would serve no useful purpose.

The fact leading to the institution of the criminal proceedings against the Appellant (Defendant at the trial Court) and the Appellant’s further appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of Court of Appeal upon appeal from the trial Court is that:

The case of the prosecution was that on 14th November,2014, at about 8:30 pm, the appellant and one Chinedu Ugwu (2nddefendant) and two others at large, were alleged to have attacked, while armed with a gun, one Chief Gbenga Ojo at Afao Road, Ado-Ekiti and robbed him of his Toyota Camry car and a cash sum of N150,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira). During the robbery, the victim was shot and left in the pool of his own blood. The friends of the victim rushed him to the hospital and his family members were subsequently alerted.

Fortunately, the family members knew that the stolen vehicle had a tracking devise and therefore reported to the police. The police were able to track the stolen vehicle in real time, as it headed towards Benin via ljebu-Ode Road. When the car arrived Benin, the police remotely immobilized the vehicle, tracked its location and arrested the appellant who was found behind the wheel and also the 2nd defendant who was found at the back seat of the car.

The appellant and the 2nd defendant were taken to Oba divisional police station in Benin and thereafter transferred to Ekiti State police command, Ado-Ekiti where the appellant’s extrajudicial statement was recorded. The appellant was subsequently arraigned before the trial court where he pleaded not guilty to the charge of armed robbery contrary to section 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap R11, Laws of Federation of Nigeria.

In proof of the charge preferred against the appellant, the prosecution called 3 witnesses and tendered 8 exhibits (A-H). The appellant testified for himself as DW1. Before the conclusion of trial and after the testimony of PWI (the victim), the Judge of the trial Court, Justice C.I. Akintayo retired from service and the matter began de novo before another trial Judge, Justice A. A. Adeleye. Before the commencement of the trial de novo, the victim (PW1) died. The record of proceedings containing the evidence of PW 1before the retired learned Judge was tendered in evidence during the fresh proceedings before the new trial Judge and admitted as exhibit F. Exhibits A, B, D1, D2, and G were the Death Certificate of the victim, confessional statement of the appellant, photographs of the wounded victim and Statement of the victim at the Police Station, respectively.

At the conclusion of trial, the trial court found that the prosecution had successfully proved the offence charged and therefore convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death by hanging.

Dissatisfied with said judgment of the trial court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal in its judgment affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

The appellant being further dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal appealed to the Supreme Court and contended that an identification parade should have been conducted for proper identification of the appellant.

The Apex Court, in determining when an identification parade is not necessary, held the following:

“Where the identity of the accused is not genuinely in dispute or where the circumstances of identification are so clear and unambiguous, the formal procedure of an identification parade becomes superfluous. The circumstances where identification parade will not be necessary are:

a. Where by confession, an accused person identifies himself as the offender;

b. Where the offender is apprehended at the scene of the crime or pursued immediately and thereafter apprehended;

c. Where the offender is well known to the witness before the incident;

d. Where there is clear and uncontradicting eye witness account and identification of the person who committed the offence.”

Equally, the learned Justices of the Supreme Court went further to state that:

"An identification parade is not obligatory where there is good and cogent evidence linking the accused person to the crime on the day of the incident. A formal identification parade may be unnecessary in such a situation…"

Additionally, the Apex Court emphasised that a valid confessional statement can render an identification parade unnecessary, thus:

"The confessional statement of an accused person is enough to ground his conviction. Therefore, an identification parade may not be necessary if the accused person makes a clear and unequivocal confessional statement admitting to the crime .A voluntary and direct confession, properly obtained and admissible in law, can sufficiently establish the identity of the perpetrator, thereby rendering an identification parade unnecessary. The confession itself serves as strong evidence of the accused's involvement, diminishing the need for corroborative identification evidence through a parade. This point is implicitly supported by the general principles of criminal evidence, where a valid confession is considered a potent piece of evidence. Thus, an identification parade is not sine qua non for conviction in all cases. Where the identity of the accused is not in doubt, or where there is overwhelming evidence, including a confession linking the accused to the crime, the absence of an identification parade will not necessarily vitiate conviction."

In conclusion, identification parade remains an important tool in the criminal justice system, as it assists in ensuring that a person accused of committing an offence is properly identified before being subjected to criminal liability. However, its usefulness depends on the fairness of the procedure and the circumstances surrounding each case. Nigerian courts have recognized that an identification parade is not a mandatory requirement in every criminal proceeding; rather, it is necessary where the identity of the accused is uncertain or genuinely disputed.

The decisions of courts, particularly in cases such as Osho v. The State of Ekiti (Supra), have helped to clarify the circumstances under which an identification parade is required and when it would be unnecessary. The courts have maintained a balance between protecting the rights of the accused against mistaken identification and ensuring that offenders do not escape justice due to procedural technicalities. Therefore, while identification parades remain valuable in strengthening identification evidence, they must be conducted with strict adherence to fairness, impartiality, and established legal principles to promote confidence in the administration of criminal justice.

About the Author: Rukayya Muhammad Nuhu is a penultimate law student and a member of the Research and Litigation Directorate, Solace Chambers, Bayero University, Kano. She can be reached via +2348122227635.