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!

CO-ACCUSED INCRIMINATING CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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?

SHARE ON

confessional statement

DENIAL OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT DOES NOT MAKE THE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT INADMISSIBLE

Against this background, it is important to note that the Appellant, in the course of his evidence-in-chief before the lower Court, retracted from the said Exhibits A and A1, thus prompting the lower Court into deciding that the entire evidence of the Appellant was at that stage unreliable and therefore discountenanced same; but the settled position of the law is that a retraction of a confession does not ipso facto render the confession inadmissible. See the old case of R. v. JOHN AGAGARIGA ITULE (1961) 1 ANLR 402 (FSC) where the Supreme Court per BRETT, Ag CJF held thus; “A confession does not become inadmissible merely because the accused person denies having made it and in this respect a confession contained in a statement made to the Police by a person under arrest is not to be treated different from any other confession. The fact that the Appellant took the earliest opportunity to deny having made the statement may lend weight to his denial. See R v. SAPELE and ANOR (1952) 2 FSC 74 but it is not in itself a reason for ignoring the statement.” … It would be further recalled that the Appellant took the earliest opportunity when the statement was offered in evidence to deny having made it. But the position remains in law, that a mere denial without more, even at the earliest opportunity, cannot, on the bare facts of the case, lend any iota of weight to the denial. Apart from the fact that the denial is a bare statement bereft of any supporting facts, it is by and large, standing only on the ipsi dexit of the Appellant. To make matters rather worse and as revealed by the printed records in this case, the said statements were not even challenged on grounds of involuntariness and the learned trial Court in its Ruling on the objection raised by the Appellant rightly declined the invitation to conduct a trial within trial. Against this backdrop, the question of the voluntariness of the statements, not having been raised or challenged at the trial, this Court therefore holds that the prosecution proved affirmatively that Exhibits A and A1 were voluntary confessional statements of the Appellant. Regardless of this position, the usual thing in all criminal trials is that the burden of proving affirmatively beyond doubt that the confession was made voluntarily is always on the prosecution, which this prosecution succeeded in doing as expected in this case. See the cases of JOSHUA ADEKANBI v. A-G WESTERN NIGERIA (1961) All NLR 47; R v. MATON PRIESTLY (1966) 50 CR APP. R 183 at 188; ISIAKA AUTA v. THE STATE (1975) NNLR 60 at 65 SC on the issue.

— F.O. Oho, JCA. Nasiru v State (2016) – CA/S/78C/2015

Was this dictum helpful?

A RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT MUST BE CORROBORATED TO BE ADMISSIBLE

The Respondent subsequently retracted Exhibits C & C 1. A retracted confessional statement is nonetheless admissible in evidence. The practice however is to look for some corroborative evidence outside the confession which makes the fact of the making of the confession credible and reliable before the Court relies on it to convict the accused, the maker. This practice which has come to be known as the “SYKE’S RULE”, following R. v. SYKES (1913) 8 Cr. App Report 233, has since become part of our criminal law jurisprudence, it having been cited with approval in several cases including UBIERHO v. THE STATE (2005) 5 NWLR (pt. 919) 644; FABIYI v. THE STATE (2015) LPELR 24834 (SC). The Rule ensures that the trial Court must properly satisfy itself that the retracted confession was infact made truly and voluntarily by the accused person.

— Ejembi Eko, JSC. State v Sani Ibrahim (2019) – SC.1097/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE AGAINST AN ACCUSED

It is trite in law, that there is no evidence stronger than a person’s own admission or confession. The confessional statement made by an accused person is potent evidence in the hand of a prosecutor for proving a charge. It is the best and safest evidence on which to convict.

– M. Peter-Odili, JSC. Enabeli v. State (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

CONFESSION IS RELEVANT WHEN IT PROVES FACT

The vital consideration that should engage the mind of a trial Judge is the relevancy of the confession. A confession is relevant when it proves the fact that constitutes one of, or all, the elements of the crime to be proved, and/or identifies the person who committed the offence. If the confession is relevant and is free and voluntary, it is admissible in evidence and once admitted, the weight to be attached depends on its probative value and pure truth content.

– Sankey JCA. Abdul v. State (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE NATIVE LANGUAGE OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT AND ENGLISH VERSION, INTERPRETER MUST BE CALLED

Shaidu v. State (2026) 7 NWLR (Pt. 2041) 31, at 88 – 89, F – D: ‘As borne out on the record, the respondent did not call the interpreter in exhibit P2 to testify and there is evidence to show that the statement of the appellant in Exhibit P7 was recorded without an interpreter in breach of the appellant’s constitutional right to fair hearing. See section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution (as altered). It is well settled that if the statement of a defendant is made in a language other than English Language and it is interpreted into English by an interpreter to the recorder, the interpreter must be called to give evidence otherwise the contents of the statement will be hearsay and the confessional statement will be inadmissible. It is hearsay evidence because it cannot be subjected to the crucible of cross-examination in the absence of the interpreter, PW1 did not lay any foundation as to the whereabout of the interpreter before he tendered exhibit P2; as for exhibit P7, it is clear from the documentary exhibit that the statement is fundamentally and fatally flawed as no named interpreter was afforded the appellant before his statement was recorded by ASP B. I who was not even called to give evidence. Indeed, it was incumbent on the respondent to tender in evidence two confessional statements in exhibits P2 and P7; one in Yoruba Language and the other, its English translation. See Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Usman & Anor (2012) 8 NWLR(Pt. 1301) 141 @ 159 – 161; Ifaramoye v. State (2017) LPELR -42031 (SC), (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1568) 457; R v. Zakwakwa (1960)FSC 12; Nwali v. State (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 182) 663; Damina v.State (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 415) 546; Adeyemi v. State (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1340) 78 at 88 – 89; Imoh v. State (2019) LPELR -47011 (CA). The lower court unfortunately failed to avert itself to the settled position of the law with regard to confessional statements obtained by the police from a defendant who does not speak the Language of the court. Exhibits P2 and P7 are therein wholly inadmissible in law and are accordingly expunged from the records.’

Was this dictum helpful?

RETRACTION OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

Additionally, on the retraction of the contents of Exhibit A at the trial by the Appellant as DW1, the law is settled that a retraction or denial of a confessional statement does not affect its admissibility. Thus, the mere fact that a confessional statement is challenged on the ground that the accused person did not make the statement, does not render it inadmissible in evidence. In such a situation, the application of the following principles should be considered in determining whether or not to believe and act on a confession which an accused person has resiled from: a) Whether there is anything outside the confession which may vindicate its veracity; whether it is corroborated in any way; b) Whether its contents, if tested could be true; c) Whether the defendant had the opportunity of committing the alleged offence; or d) Whether the confession is possible and the consistency of the said confession with other facts that have been established.

– Sankey JCA. Abdul v. State (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.