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
SHARE ON
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)
In other words, the retracted confession must pass the six credibility tests forming part of our criminal jurisprudence which have been established in a long fine of cases referred to above. These are: i. Is there anything outside the confession to show that it is true? ii. Is it corroborated? iii. Are the relevant statements made in it of facts true as far as they can be tested? iv. Was the accused one who had the opportunity of committing murder? v. Is his confession possible? vi. Is it consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and have been proved?
– H.M. Ogunwumiju, JSC. State v. Ibrahim (2021) – SC.200/2016
It is indeed the law that an accused person’s statement should, as much as possible, be taken down in the exact words of the accused person. Where the statement is thereafter translated into English by another person, the interpreter must be called as a witness in order for the statement in English to be admissible in evidence. Where that interpreter is not called, the statement in English will be regarded as hearsay evidence and will therefore be inadmissible
– Eyop v. State (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1615) 273 (SC) per Sanusi, J.S.C.
Usually, objections raised as to the admissibility of confessional statements pose one of the greatest challenges to criminal trials as it slows down the pace of the proceedings when there is a trial within trial. It is for this reason that Section 9(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State 2011 and Section 17(2) and 15(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 have been put in place to ensure that the Police and other agencies who have the power to arrest, obtain confessional statements from suspects without any form of oppression or illegality. The effect of the said provision is that every confessional statement must be recorded on video so that the said recording can be tendered and played in Court as evidence to prove voluntariness or a legal practitioner or any person as specified under Section 17(2) of the ACJA must be present. The essence of the video/audio-visual evidence is obviously so that the Court will be able to decipher from the demeanor of the Defendant and all other surrounding circumstances in the video if he or she voluntarily made the confessional statement. Alternatively, where a video facility is not available, the Police must take the confessional statement in writing and must ensure that while same was being taken, the Defendant had a Legal Practitioner of his choice present. However, over the years, it seems to me that these provisions are only existent on paper as the Police and other security agencies seldom comply with them. The current state of technology where most mobile phones have a recording application that would state the time and place of making the video if there is no official Police photographer at hand, makes the non-compliance inexcusable. My Lords, it is baffling, to say the least, that at this point in our criminal justice system, there is still failure to meet with minimum standards of Police investigation or interrogation that obtains in other jurisdictions.
— H.M. Ogunwumiju, JSC. Friday Charles v. The State of Lagos (SC.CR/503/2020, Friday March 31 2023)
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
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