In Odogun v. State (2025), the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered a decisive judgment affirming the conviction of Sunday Odogun for conspiracy, armed robbery, and murder, while reinstating the death penalty earlier commuted to life imprisonment by the Court of Appeal. Beyond the gravity of the charges, the case serves as a critical exposition on the admissibility and relevancy of documentary evidence in criminal trials, particularly where the defence seeks to rely on extrinsic materials to buttress an alibi.

‍

Factual Backdrop

The prosecution’s case was built on eyewitness accounts identifying Odogun as one of the assailants who ambushed a convoy of cow butchers along the Osogbo-Ilesa Road in 2006. The victims testified that Odogun, clad in a Mobile Police (MOPOL) uniform, participated in the robbery and murder. In his defence, Odogun raised an alibi, claiming he was on official duty in Benin City at the time. To corroborate this, his counsel sought to tender a statement from Sunday Ojeh, the administrative officer of Odogun’s MOPOL unit, through the Investigating Police Officer (PW5). The trial court rejected the statement, and the Supreme Court upheld this exclusion, sparking a nuanced discourse on the interplay between relevance, admissibility, and procedural rigour in criminal evidence.

The Court’s decision turned on two pivotal questions:

Was Sunday Ojeh’s statement relevant to Odogun’s alibi? If relevant, was it admissible under the Evidence Act?

1. Relevancy: The Threshold Question

The Court reaffirmed the foundational principle that relevance is the gateway to admissibility. A document must first be logically connected to the facts in issue to be considered for admission. Here, Ojeh’s statement was ostensibly relevant, it purportedly supported Odogun’s claim of being in Benin City during the robbery. However, the defence sought to tender it not for its truth but merely to prove that it existed. This distinction proved fatal. The Court held that where a document’s content is irrelevant to the substantive issue (e.g., it does not directly corroborate the alibi), its mere existence is immaterial. As the statement was not tendered to authenticate Odogun’s whereabouts, its relevance was negated.

2. Admissibility: The Maker’s Rule and Exceptions

Even assuming relevance, the Court emphasized the “maker’s rule” under Section 83 of the Evidence Act. A document must generally be tendered by its maker to ensure cross-examination and authenticity. The defence failed to call Ojeh, nor did it invoke any statutory exceptions (e.g., the maker’s death or unavailability). PW5’s attempt to tender the statement was thus incompetent, a procedural misstep that rendered the document inadmissible.

The Court further rejected the argument that the prosecution was obligated to call Ojeh. Relying on Onunze v. State (2022), it held that the prosecution retains discretion to call only witnesses material to its case. If the defence believed Ojeh’s testimony was crucial, it should have summoned him. This underscores a tactical burden on defendants to proactively substantiate their alibis.

‍

Conclusion

Odogun v. State is a stark reminder that in the adversarial arena of criminal trials, relevance alone is insufficient. Evidence must navigate the procedural labyrinth of admissibility to be deemed credible. For defendants, this demands meticulous preparation; for prosecutors, it validates strategic selectivity. Above all, the judgment cements the judiciary’s role as a gatekeeper, ensuring that only evidence meeting both logical and legal thresholds shapes the fate of the accused.

‍

Citation: Odogun v. State (2025) LPELR-80680(SC)

Key Principles: Admissibility, relevancy, maker’s rule, alibi defence, prosecutorial discretion.