By A.A Taofeek

Generally, the end-result of criminal law is to punish the perpetrator of a crime. This punishment, however, is often severe in nature. As such, it is very germane to clearly and undoubtedly identify the perpetrator of a crime in order to avoid punishing an innocent soul, hence, the identification parade. This piece examines what identification parade is, when identification parade is needed and how identification parade is to be conducted.

Conceptually, Black’s Law Dictionary[1] defines identification parade otherwise known as “Lineup” as “A police identification procedure in which a criminal suspect and other physically similar persons are shown to the victim or a witness to determine whether the suspect can be identified as the perpetrator of the crime”.

Similarly, in KEKONG v STATE [2] the court held that identification parade by its nature is the means of establishing whether a person charged with an offence is the same person who committed the offence.

Stationed on the above, it is safe to posit that identification parade or lineup is a process or procedure of proper identification of the accused person by the victim or witness(es) as the person who took part in the commission of the alleged crime.

Furthermore, it is pertinent to question oneself on when is identification parade needed, is it a yardstick needed in all criminal cases to ground conviction of the accused person, or is it a foolproof itself? These are the questions that beg for answer. It is, however, delighted that the answers to these questions are not far-fetched. The answers have been provided by the Supreme Court in plethora of cases. For instance, the Apex Court held in KEKONG v STATE (supra) that identification parade is essential in instances where:

(a) The victim or witness did not know the accused before and his first acquaintance with him was during the commission of the offence.

(b) The victim or witness was confronted by the offender for a very short time.

(c) The victim, due to time and circumstances, might not have had the full opportunity of observing the features of the accused.

More so, it is very germane to state that identification parade is not a sine qua non to conviction, i.e it is not a yardstick needed in all criminal cases to ground conviction. If there is any other piece of evidence overwhelmingly leading to the identity of the perpetrator, identification parade may not be necessary because identification parade itself is not foolproof nor is it a guarantee against the usual errors of observation, errors of recognition or errors of reconstruction. It is for this reason that Oputa, JSC, (as he then was) stated in IKEMSON v. THE STATE[3] 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.

Consequently, trial courts are admonished to be absolutely 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 identification of the accused person by exposing errors of observation, of recognition, of resemblance etc. See also OMOPUPA v STATE[4].

However, the procedure on identification parade is not cumbersome. The trite law is that, where the evidence of identity of an accused person to the commission of a crime is that of recognition, the witness must mention the name of the person he claims to have known before the incident to the police at the earliest opportunity. That being so, where an eye witness fails to mention the name of the person whom he knows and was seen by him committing the offence, such evidence of identification which he gives at a later date should be treated with great caution. This is to avoid a situation where an innocent person may, for one reason or another, be roped in the commission of an offence of which he has no knowledge. This is the position of the law as held in BOZIN v. STATE.[5] It is for this reason that Per Tsammani JCA stated in MARTIN EGBUFOR v. THE STATE [6]  that “when an eye witness omits to or fails to mention at the earliest opportunity the name of a person he said he saw committing the offence, the court must be careful in accepting his evidence given later and which implicates the accused, unless a satisfactory explanation is given as to why the name was not mentioned.”

Thus, in the case of R v. TURNBUL[7] Lord Widgerry; C.J stated as follows: “At what distance. In what light. Was the observation impeded in any way… Had the witness ever seen the accused before? How often… Recognition may be more reliable than identification of a stranger, but even when the witness is purporting to recognize someone whom he knows, mistakes in recognition of close relatives and friends are sometimes made. All these matters go to the quality of the identification evidence. If the quality is good and remains good at the close of the accused person’s case, the danger of a mistaken identification is lessened but the poorer the quality, the greater the danger.”

In conclusion, where the victim did not know the accused person before or prior to the date of the incident, but was confronted for a very short time in the course of the commission of the offence and in which time he might not have had full opportunity of observing the features of the accused an identification parade would be required. However, where a victim or witness claims to have known the accused well prior to the incident and also gave his name to the Police, an identification parade will not be necessary. In such a circumstance, the evidence of identification is that of recognition. Though the evidence of recognition is usually more reliable than that of identification parade, trial courts are yet enjoined to exercise caution before convicting thereon, as mistakes in identification cannot be ruled out.

*A.A Taofeek is a student of Law at the prestigious Usman Dan Fodio University, Sokoto. He can always be reached via; olamideajibade02@gmail.com

[1] 9th Edition

[2] [2018] All FWLR (Pt.923)

[3](1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.110) 455

[4](2008) All FWLR (Pt. 445) 1648

[5] (1985) 7 S.C. p.450 at 469

[6] (2013) AELR 1752 (CA)

[7](1976) 3 ALL E.R. p.549 AT 551

"Exciting news! TheNigeriaLawyer is now on WhatsApp Channels 🚀 Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest legal insights!" Click here! ....................................................................................................................... Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material and other digital content on this website, in whole or in part, without express and written permission from TheNigeriaLawyer, is strictly prohibited _________________________________________________________________ [Register Now] ILA Nigeria Branch Marks 10 Years With Infrastructure Financing As Theme For 7th Annual Conference The International Law Association - Nigeria Branch 7th annual conference on public-private partnerships for sustainable infrastructure financing, April 4-5 in Abuja. Details: https://ilanigeria.org.ng/conference _________________________________________________________________

NIALS' Compendia Series: Your One-Stop Solution For Navigating Nigerian Laws (2004-2023)

Email: info@nials.edu.ng, tugomak@yahoo.co.uk, Contact: For Inquiry and information, kindly contact, NIALS Director of Marketing: +2348074128732, +2348100363602.