P 1 that he is one of the robbers, being familiar with PW I and was her customer, and above all , revealing the names of his gang members. In exhibit DI , the I st defendant admitted making exhibit "PI ". In his oral evidence, he set up a different story. He raised the defence of alibi by claiming to be at St. Jude ' s 1,nglican Church Adazi Ani . He vacillated from and/or oscillated between his conf~ssional statement (exhibit Pl) and his exhibit "DI ". I noted that exhibit Pl was made on the 30/5/16 and exhibit D 1 was madE: on the 28/6/16, a couple of days less than one month from the date exhibit "PI " was made. He did not tell the police that he was at St. Jude 's Anglican Church, Adazi Anion the date the ro~bery incident occurred when he made the two statements. It is settled that the essence of a defence of alibi is that a person cannot normally be present in two different locations simultaneously. In other words, a man cannot be said to be at a different location while allegedly committing an offence at another location at the same time. A plea of alibi should be raised at the earliest opportunity in the accused person 's :;tatement to the police investigating the case. It is the duty of the accused to state particulars relating to where he was at the material time as well as the person or persons he was with and the place of the alleged crime. Alibi is not a magic wand available to all accused of crime. It must be raised timeously and particulars supplied to enable the veracity of same to be proved. It is perplexing and intriguing that the 1st defendant has raised the defence of alibi for the first time in the witness box while giving his evidence. I hold that his evidence of alibi is worthless and an after thought. See the ·following cases Ude .v.State (2016) 14 NWLR (pt.1531) 122@ 153 - 154 and Asuquo .v. State (2016) 14 NWLR (pt.1532) 309 @ 333 There is no doubt that the 1st defendant is inconsistent with his viva voce evidence in court. The law is that where an accused person gives evidence that is at variance or inconsistent with the earlier statement made by him to the police, such evidence should be and ought to be taken with a pinch of salt if not disregarded as unreliable. See the case oflsong .v. State (2016)14NWLR(Pt.1531)96@112 . By the evidence of PW 1, PW2, and PVv3 it is established that the I st defendant was at the scene of the crime. I asked myself this pertinent question : Are there other pieces of evidence, apart from exhibit PI, which was proved against the defendant \ / 23