INGREDIENTS BEFORE INDUCEMENT/PROMISE/THREAT WILL NULLIFY A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
Ngorka v. A.-G., Imo State (2026) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2056) 1 at 36—37, H—C: ‘In the first instance, the law is that a confession is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making of the confession was caused by inducement, threat promise or torture, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it, he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature. In other words, for an inducement, threat or promise to make a confessional statement irrelevant and therefore inadmissible, three conditions must be present it must have reference to the charge against the (i) defendant; (ii) it must proceed from a person in authority (iii) and the defendant should believe that by making the statement, he would gain advantage and avoid evil even if temporarily – Dondos v. State (2021) 9 NWLR (Pt.1780) 24. The act of showing to the appellant the confessional statement of the second accused person, containing assertions implicating him in the robbery, and on the basis of which the appellant chose to ‘open up’ and confess his role in the robbery, did not come within the above definition and/or meet the requirements of what amounts to inducement. The second respondent who made the confessional statement shown to the appellant was not a person in authority over the appellant and there was nothing to suggest that the appellant believed that by ‘opening up’ and making his confessional statement he stood to gain any gain advantage and avoid evil, even if temporarily. The showing of the confessional of the second respondent to the appellant could thus not nullify the confession of the appellant.’