The Necessity of Investigating Police Officers’ (“IPOS”) Evidence in Criminal Trials: A Review of Sunday v. State (2026) 16 NWLR (Pt. 2065) 237.
By Anifowose Faruq Adio
Introduction
The importance of Investigating Police Officers’ (“IPO”) testimony cannot be overlooked in the administration of justice. They provide the foundation upon which the prosecution who conducts the case in the court, builds his case. The IPOs can be called upon to testify in order to establish certain facts arising from the case including the arrest of the defendant, recovery of exhibits, confessional statements, and in respect of other material evidence in the case.
The importance of such testimony can be observed from two standing points: one in the sense that it serves as a factual account of the investigation and corroboration for other witnesses. Also, courts rely on such testimony where they appear to be accurate, cogent and true. This helps the court to achieve justice in a case. Though, the court’s reliance on such testimony must be in accordance with the law of evidence and the judicial and judicious powers of the court.
The failure to call an IPO as a witness in a criminal trial may, in some circumstances, affect the success of the prosecution’s case. This is so where the significant aspect of the investigation, including the arrest of the defendant, the retrieval of exhibits, has not been proved. The absence of such a testimony may therefore deprive the defendant to successfully challenge the investigative process through cross-examination and the court may be left with unanswered questions necessary for the determination of such trial.
This article examines the evidential significance of an IPO’s testimony in the adjudication of criminal trials and the circumstances in which such testimony becomes material. To achieve this, this article reviews the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sunday v. State.[1]
Brief Facts of Sunday v. State
On 21st July, 2012, in the evening, the appellant and other persons came to the 1st and 2nd witness’ house armed with gun and cutlass to dispossess them of their handsets and other possessions. During the robbery, PW1 and PW2 got in contact directly with the appellant by virtue of which they were able to recognize the appellant as part of the armed robbers that disposed them of their possessions.
The appellant hit the PW1 with a cutlass when PW1 failed to hand over his handset and money to the appellant. Then, PW1, with courage, grabbed the appellant and wrest the cutlass from him and used it against the appellant which led to a cut on the appellant’s head. The appellant fell on the ground, screamed and then ran away with his other fellows. The appellant was pursued immediately by PW1, PW2 and their neighbours and arrested behind a trailer where he was hiding.
The appellants and his other fellows also pointed gun at PW2 and forced him to lead them to his house where they also robbed him of his handset and money. Upon arresting the appellant, the appellant was handed over to the policemen. The appellant was thereby arraigned before the High Court of Edo State with one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and six counts of armed robbery, all punishable under section 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. R11, Volume14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. The High Court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to death by hanging. The appellant being dissatisfied, appealed to the Court of Appeal which also upheld the decision of the High Court and dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The appellant made a further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in its well-considered judgment, unanimously dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of both courts.
Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Decision
The issues that were placed before the Supreme Court for determination were whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and whether the calling of the investigating police officers as witnesses, and tendering of the weapons linking the appellant to the offence, were indispensable in proving the charge against the appellant.
The appellant argued that “there was no record before the court of any police investigation as regards the conduct of the appellant, the police officers mentioned by the PW1, as those that arrested the appellant with injuries, were not called to testify, the appellant’s version of how the police arrested him was different from the version given by PW1, the prosecution did not tender in evidence any objects allegedly recovered from the appellant nor the statements of the appellant and the two lower courts failed to consider the defence of the appellant”.
The respondent argued that the absence of the IPOs’ testimony during the proceedings at the trial court had no significance to the case as there was no doubt created in the mind of the trial judge which if the IPOs had been called would have resolved in any manner.
The respondent argued further that the failure to call the IPOs as witnesses did not offend the provision of Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011 which borders on withholding of evidence. He also argued that the failure to tender the weapons used by the appellant during the armed robbery did not affect the case in any way.
To resolve the issues, the Supreme Court (“SC”) re-emphasized the standard of proof required in criminal trials as provided by Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011. The section provides that the allegation of crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt to sustain the allegation. More importantly, the SC highlighted that proving an allegation of crime beyond reasonable doubt does not require the prosecution to call numerous witnesses. It suffices if the prosecution calls only one witness provided such witness is credible and can give qualitative evidence. Such evidence, if believed by the court, could establish the essential ingredients which a defendant has been charged with.
The SC, having carefully considered the above provision of the law, reviewed the decisions of the lower courts in the case. The SC agreed with the reasoning of the two lower courts. It referred back to the decision of the trial court per Hon. Justice J.U. Oyomire where the learned trial judge believed the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The learned trial judge reasoned that the evidence of PW1 was corroborated by the evidence given by the PW2 as to the identification of the appellant as one of the armed men who dispossessed them of their possessions while armed with offensive weapons.
Referring to the decision of the Court of Appeal, the SC quoted the decision of the court below where it added that the identity of the appellant was absolutely not in contest as the PW1 and PW2 had direct contact with the appellant. The court reiterated that the police who are the IPOs in this case played no significant role in this case save the report of their investigation. Other evidence concerning the facts and nature of the robbery or that the appellant was part of the armed men would have amounted to hearsay evidence since the PW1 and PW2 are in the best position to testify to such facts. Thus, the testimonies of the IPOs are not fundamental for the proper determination of the case.
The SC held that the appellant failed to show that the decision of the Court of Appeal affirming that of the trial court is perverse and erroneous such that it led to miscarriage of justice. Thus, the SC would not interfere with the findings of the courts below as it only does so where such has been shown to be perverse and erroneous. The SC per Adumein J.S.C. held that he would not disturb the well-reasoned judgment of the Court of Appeal and thereby, dismissed the appeal and resolved the issues in favour of the respondents.
To provide clarity to the reasoning of the SC, Ogbuinya J.S.C stated that “in the evidential pyramid, evidence of an eye witness ranks second as it concedes prime position to a confession”. Thus, the evidence given by PW1 and PW2 in this case being the eye-witnesses and victims of the conduct of the appellant and his other fellow, was concrete evidence that placed the appellant in such position.
The Roles of IPO in Criminal Trials
As earlier pointed out, the roles of IPO in criminal trials cannot be disregarded. They are so important to the prosecution’s case that in some cases, the prosecution’s case will fail without the IPOs being called to testify on certain facts and tender exhibits. The court in State v. Fafuru[2] succinctly stated thus:
“The Investigation Police Officer (IPO) in any investigation is not usually an eye witness to any crime. He investigates alleged crimes reported to him. He interrogates the suspects, and takes down their statements. He visits the locus in quo for further investigations. He interviews witnesses and investigates alibi…”
It is gleanable from the above decision of the court that the roles of IPOs in criminal trials include the following:
- Investigation of the alleged crimes as reported.
- Interrogation of the suspects.
- Receiving and recording complaints and statements of the suspects.
- Interviewing the witnesses.
- Collection and preservation of exhibits.
- Linking the evidence gathered during investigation to the prosecution’s case at trial.
- Visiting the location of the crime for further investigations.
A fact needed to be stressed here is that an IPO with regard to his position is not an eye-witness to a crime. The fact that an IPO conducted investigation and became aware of some information does not automatically translates that he is an eye witness and more importantly, does not prove the guilt of the defendant. Such an IPO’s testimony is still subject to the admissibility rule of evidence certain circumstances.
Is IPO’s Testimony Necessary in all Trials?
From the foregoing discussions, the answer will be in the negative. An IPO’s testimony is not strictly necessary for the prosecution to succeed. In other words, the prosecution does not always need to call an IPO before to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution reserves the discretion to decide which witnesses to call to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, if the testimony of eyewitnesses, the victim, or medical experts is strong enough to establish all the essential ingredients of the offence, the absence of the IPO will not defeat the prosecution’s case.
However, the IPO’s testimony will become necessary where such cases heavily rely on it. This includes circumstances where the case relies on recovery of exhibits, weapons, or confessional statements. In these scenarios, the testimony of the IPO cannot be neglected because he is the person who received these items or recorded the defendant’s statement, so, he must be personally present to tender them in court. Doing it by somebody else will amount to hearsay evidence except where the statute allows.
Conclusion
The decision of the court in Sunday v. State establishes a clear-cut distinction between a case where the evidence of an IPO is necessary and where it does not. The court, in making a clarification as to the reasoning of the court in arriving at the decision, considers the pyramid of evidence. The confessional statement of a defendant takes the lead while the evidence of an eye-witness follows. The evidence of an eye-witness will always be qualitative enough to prove the prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt, especially where the identity of the defendant is not in question and where the eye-witness itself is a victim of the defendant’s conduct. The direct interaction of PW1 and PW2 in this case with the appellant made the evidence of the IPO unnecessary because there was no question as to the identity of the appellant. This sole reason led to the decision of the court in this matter. It therefore follows to say that where the prosecution does not need to prove the arrest of the defendant, tender exhibits recovered, prove the confessional statement of the defendant, then, the evidence of an IPO is not fundamental to the determination of the case.
Short Bio of Anifowose Faruq Adio
Anifowose Faruq Adio is a dedicated and results-oriented legal practitioner who leverages his skills and training to deliver exceptional legal services to clients. He is a CAC Accredited Agent and Certified Tax Agent with HopperTax.
He is a Trainee Associate in the Dispute Resolution Department of S.P.A. Ajibade & Co where he provides legal services in commercial litigation, insurance, aviation, arbitration, debt recovery, employment disputes and contractual claims. He is the founder of LexEase, an initiative established under H-M Multi Concepts duly registered with CAC, launched to simplify the administrative and procedural milestones required of law students, aspirants, and legal professionals across Nigeria. Through dedication to excellence and a commitment to continuous professional development, Faruq Anifowose has authored several articles which include:
- Reopening Concluded Cases in the Interest of Justice: Lessons from South Korea for Nigeria.
- The Legal Implication of Releasing Sex Tapes in Nigeria: A Case Study of FUOYE SUG President – Ogbeni Adio.
- Criminalization of Cash Payment Method in Real Estate Transactions.
- Cooperative Societies – Halal or Haram.
- Does Information Given to a Police Officer During Investigation of a Crime Amount to Hearsay Evidence? – A Response to Prof. Wole Soyinka
- Can Facebook (META Inc.) be Sued and Held Liable for Defamation? – A Case of Study of Femi Falana v. Facebook (META Inc.)
- Can We Really Say There’s No Sense Of Ownership/Copyright In AI Generated Works – An Overview Of Copyright Act, 2022
He can be contacted through 09060973120 or 09053660024. [email protected]
ENDNOTES
[1] (2026) 16 NWLR (Pt. 2065) 237
[2] (2023) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1866) 475
Photo credit: Thecable.com
****************************************************************************************
This work is published under the free legal awareness project of Sabi Law Foundation (www.SabiLaw.org) funded by the law firm of Bezaleel Chambers International (www.BezaleelChambers.com). The writer was not paid or charged any publishing fee. You too can support the legal awareness projects and programs of Sabi Law Foundation by donating to us. Donate here and get our unique appreciation certificate or memento.
DISCLAIMER:
This publication is not a piece of legal advice. The opinion expressed in this publication is that of the author(s) and not necessarily the opinion of our organisation, staff and partners.
PROJECTS:
🛒 Take short courses, get samples/precedents and learn your rights at www.SabiLaw.org
🎯 Publish your legal articles for FREE by sending to: [email protected]
🎁 Receive our free Daily Law Tips & other publications via our website and social media accounts or join our free whatsapp group: Daily Law Tips Group 6
KEEP IN TOUCH:
Get updates on all the free legal awareness projects of Sabi Law (#SabiLaw) and its partners, via:
YouTube: SabiLaw
Twitter: @Sabi_Law
Facebook page: SabiLaw
Instagram: @SabiLaw.org_
WhatsApp Group: Free Daily Law Tips Group 6
Telegram Group: Free Daily Law Tips Group
Facebook group: SabiLaw
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.SabiLaw.org
ABOUT US & OUR PARTNERS:
This publication is the initiative of the Sabi Law Foundation (www.SabiLaw.org) funded by the law firm of Bezaleel Chambers International (www.BezaleelChambers.com). Sabi Law Foundation is a Not-For-Profit and Non-Governmental Legal Awareness Organization based in Nigeria. It is the first of its kind and has been promoting free legal awareness since 2010.
DONATION & SPONSORSHIP:
As a registered not-for-profit and non-governmental organisation, Sabi Law Foundation relies on donations and sponsorships to promote free legal awareness across Nigeria and the world. With a vast followership across the globe, your donations will assist us to increase legal awareness, improve access to justice, reduce common legal disputes and crimes in Nigeria. Make your donations to us here or contact us for sponsorship and partnership, via: [email protected] or +234 903 913 1200.
**********************************************************************************
