CONFESSION ALONE CAN GROUND CONVICTION

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT SHOULD BE OBJECTED TO WHEN SOUGHT TO BE TENDERED

It must also be stated that the time to object to the voluntariness of a confessional statement is when it is sought to be tendered and not after it has been admitted in evidence. See: Godsgift Vs The State (2016) LPELR-40540 (SC) 5 31 B C; Olalekan Vs The State (2002) 2 SCNJ 104; Muhammad Vs The State (2017) LPELR-42098 ISC) g 17 18 C B.

— K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC. State v Sani Ibrahim (2019) – SC.1097/2016

A TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL IS CONDUCTED WHERE A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS CHALLENGED ON VOLUNTARINESS

The law is trite that in circumstance where the prosecution seeks to tender the confessional statement of an accused person and it is objected to and challenged on the ground that it was not made voluntarily, a trial within trial is conducted for the sole purpose of finding out if the statement was made voluntarily or whether the confessional statement was extracted from the accused by force or threat of punishment or by any form of inducement. If at the end of the trial within trial the trial Judge is satisfied that the confessional statement was not voluntary, such a statement is not admissible in evidence. If on the other hand the statement is adjudged voluntarily made, it is admitted in evidence. In both cases the trial Judge should rule on it accordingly and that brings the trial within trial to an end and the main trial continues. SeeIbeme v The State (2013) 10 NWLR (pt 1362) 333, Solola & Anor v State (2005) 11 NWLR (pt 937) 460, Federal Republic of Nigeria v Iweka (2013) 3 NWLR (pt 1341) 285.

— J.I. Okoro, JSC. Chibuike Ofordike V. The State (SC.695/2016, 2019)

WHEN A TRIAL-WITHIN-TRIAL IS TO BE CONDUCTED

When a trial Court is confronted with a statement made by an accused person which is confessional, there are two situations that may arise. The accused person may object to the admissibility of the statement on the ground that it was not voluntarily made; that it was procured by means of torture, inducement or fear. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the court to conduct what is commonly referred to as a “trial within trial” to determine if indeed the statement was voluntarily made, Where the accused person denied making the statement at all, a trial within trial is unnecessary. The Court would be at liberty to admit the statement in evidence and at the conclusion of the case determine the probative value to attach to it.

– Galadima, JSC. Kingsley v. State (2016)

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT BECOMES PROOF

Be it noted that a confessional statement becomes proof of an act when it is true, positive and direct. – Onu JSC. Peter v. State (1997)

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: VOLUNTARINESS VS DISOWNING

Where it is alleged that a confessional statement was obtained under duress or as a result of threat or inducement, the Courts have developed the practice of conducting a trial within trial 18 (TWT) or mini trial to ascertain the voluntariness of the statement. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that it was freely and voluntarily made … On the other hand, where the accused outrightly disowns the confession and asserts that he did not make the statement at all, it would be admitted in evidence and considered alongside other evidence led at the trial to determine its probative value.

– Kekere-Ekun JSC. Berende v. FRN (2021)

WHAT IS A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

The law is well settled on issues relating to admissibility or otherwise of confessional statements by accused persons. A confessional statement is a statement by an accused person which unequivocally confesses to the commission of an offence charged. Such a statement to be of any probative value, must be clear, precise and unequivocal. It must also be direct, positive and should relate to the accused person’s own acts, knowledge or intention, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime charged. See Akpan v The State (1992) 7 SCNJ 22, Yesufu v State (1976) 6 SC 167, Magaji v The Nigerian Army (2008) 8 NWLR (pt 1089) 338.

— J.I. Okoro, JSC. Chibuike Ofordike V. The State (SC.695/2016, 2019)