“First, it is settled law that an accused must raise his defence of alibi timeously and at the earliest possible opportunity. In the case of: UDOEBERE VS. THE STATE (2001) FWLR (PT. 59) 1244 at 1258-1259, the Supreme Court held that for the accused person to raise the defence while testifying in Court at his trial is to deliberately deny the prosecution its right and duty to investigate the defence of alibi.
Much later, but consistent with the position of our Superior Courts, the Court of Appeal per Sankey JCA held in the case of: AFOLALU VS. STATE (2007) LPELR – 8692 (CA) that:
“Alibi is a radical defence and it simply means an accused was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the offence and could not have possibly been on the scene to partake of it
AKPAN VS. THE STATE (2002) 5 SCNJ 301, OZAKI VS. THE STATE (1990) 1 NWLR (PT. 124) 92 and NWABUEZE VS. THE STATE (1998) 4 NWLR (PT. 86) 16.
The facts of the alibi are peculiarly within the Appellant’s knowledge and such witnesses as may be available. He therefore has the onus to disclose such facts with necessary details and particulars at the earliest opportunity so as to transfer the burden to the Police to check them out and deal with them with some finality.
See: EYISI VS. THE STATE (2000) 12 SCNJ 104, (2000) 15 NWLR (PT. 691) 555.” (P.38).”Per OWOADE, J.C.A. (Pp. 42-43, Paras. C-D); JUBRIL v. FRN (2018) LPELR-43993(CA)