STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

CONFESSION ALONE CAN GROUND CONVICTION

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Furthermore, it is also the law that the confessional statement of an accused person alone is sufficient to ground a conviction. A confession alone, properly proved, is enough to ground a conviction, even without corroboration. Thus, an uncorroborated confessional statement of an accused person can be acted upon, without more. Nonetheless, it is advisable to look for some evidence outside the confessional statement which makes it probable that the confession is true.

– Sankey JCA. Abdul v. State (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

confessional statement

SIX TESTS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT MUST PASS IF RETRACTED

Where a confessional statement is retracted as in this case, the Court then shall decide the weight it would attach to the confessional statement. The best way to go about it is by subjecting the confession to the underlisted six tests, namely: (a) Is there anything outside the confession to show that it is true? (b) Is the confessional statement corroborated (c) Are the statements made in it of facts and so far as we can test them, true? (d) Is the accused person a person who had the opportunity of committing the offence (e) Is his confession possible? (f) Is it consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and which have been proved at the trial See Kareem v FRN (2003) 16 WRN 114; Kolawole v State (2015) EJSC (Vol.3) 41; Dibie v State (2007) 1 ALL FWLR (pt.363) 83; Ejinima v State (1991) 5 LRCN 1640; Bature v State (1994)1 NWLR (pt.320) 267.

— Amiru Sanusi, JSC. Ogunleye Tobi v The State (2019) – SC.714/2017

Was this dictum helpful?

CO-ACCUSED INCRIMINATING CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

On the issue of his Co-Accused’s Statement, the Appellant is right that his statement cannot be used against him. The position of the law is that the Statement of a Co-Accused Person to the Police is binding on him only see Suberu v. State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1197) 586. However, where the evidence incriminating an Accused Person comes from a Co-Accused Person, the Court is at liberty to rely on it as long as the co-accused person who gave such incriminating evidence, was tried along with that Accused Person. see Dairo v The State (2017) LPELR-43724(SC) and Micheal V. State (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1104) 383.

— A.A. Augie, JSC. Usman v The State (2019) – SC.228/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

TRIAL-WITHIN-TRIAL IS TO TEST VOLUNTARINESS OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS ONLY

I agree with the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Appellant’s counsel had really misunderstood the fundamental requirement in criminal trial. A trial within trial is required in law where the objection to admissibility of a statement is based on the ground that it was not made voluntarily. In that case there has to be a trial within trial to determine the question of voluntariness. It is only where this is proved by the prosecution that the statement is admitted in evidence.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

RETRACTION OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT DOES NOT RENDER IT INADMISSIBLE

It is trite that the mere retraction of a confessional statement by the Defendant will not render it inadmissible. It will only affect the weight to be attached to it where the Defendant denies making it at the earliest opportunity.

– Ogunwumiju JSC. Junaidu v. State (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

FACTORS THE COURT WILL CONSIDER BEFORE RELYING ON A RETRACTED STATEMENT

Before relying on a retracted confessional statement to convict an accused person, the factors the Court would consider are as follows: 1. Whether there is anything outside the confession which shows that it may be true; 2. Whether the confessional statement is in fact corroborated; 3. Whether the relevant statements of fact made in it are most likely true as far as they can be tested; 4. Whether the accused had the opportunity of committing the offence; 5. Whether the confession is possible; and 6. Whether the alleged confession is consistent with other facts that have been ascertained and established. See: R Vs Sykes (1913) 8 Cr.App. Report 233; Ubierho Vs The State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 919) 644 @ 655; Nwachukwu Vs The State (supra); Fabiyi Vs The State (2015) LPELR -24834 (SC) @ 33-34 E-D.

— K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC. State v Abdu Musa (2019) – SC.625/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.