It is now axiomatic that a confessional statement can ground the conviction of an accused person provided that it is direct and positive. It is therefore no longer debatable that a man may be convicted on his confessional statement alone which is voluntary, free, positive, so long as the Court is satisfied of its truth. Such a confession would constitute proof of guilt of the maker and suffices as evidence upon which to ground or sustain his conviction.
– Abdu Aboki, JSC. Chukwu v. State (2021)
SHARE ON
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
The fact that an accused person denies making a confessional statement to the police, does not render such extra-judicial statement inadmissible merely because the accused person denies having made it. What the Court is expected to do to determine the weight to be attached to a retracted confessional statement is to test its truthfulness and veracity by examining the said statement in the light of other credible available evidence. The Court would consider whether: a. There is anything outside that Confessional statement to show that it is true; b. It is Corroborated; c. The facts stated in it are true as far as it can be tested; d. The accused person had the opportunity of committing the offence; e. The accused person’s confession is possible; f. The confession is consistent with the other facts ascertained and proved at the trial. See Per OKORO, JSC, in ALAO V. STATE (2019) LPELR-47856(SC) (PP. 23-24 PARAS. E).
— M.D. Muhammad, JSC. Friday Charles v. The State of Lagos (SC.CR/503/2020, Friday March 31 2023)
I must emphasise that the function of a court in trial within trial is narrowed down to determining solely the question of voluntariness of the statement in issue and not on whether or not the statement is that of the accused person or improperly recorded. It boils down to the proposition that there is no way an accused person who has not acknowledged his alleged confessional statement sought to be tendered by the prosecution in a trial within trial can come round to object to its voluntariness. The absence of his locus to otherwise so contend is indisputable.
– Chukwuma-Eneh JSC. Ibeme v. State (2013)
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
A confessional statement which is voluntarily made is an admission by the maker that he committed the offence. it is the best evidence in support of the case of the prosecution against an accused person. however, such evidence, apart from being voluntarily made, must be positive, direct, pungent and consistent with other facts as proved in the case.
– Adamu Jauro, JSC. Enabeli v. State (2021)
The rule with respect to conducting a trial within a trial operates only in cases of questioning the voluntariness or otherwise of confessions. It does not operate where an accused person denies making the statement or retracts.
– Galadima, JSC. Kingsley v. State (2016)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry