I must however emphasise the commendable practice of having confessional statements being endorsed by a superior police officer on having been satisfied on its voluntariness. These procedural safeguards are the most effective means to enable a trial court discover the truth of the matter as to the voluntariness or otherwise of an accused’s confession.
– Chukwuma-Eneh JSC. Ibeme v. State (2013)
SHARE ON
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.’
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)
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
Where it is alleged that a confessional statement was obtained under duress or as a result of threat or inducement, the Courts have developed the practice of conducting a trial within trial 18 (TWT) or mini trial to ascertain the voluntariness of the statement. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that it was freely and voluntarily made … On the other hand, where the accused outrightly disowns the confession and asserts that he did not make the statement at all, it would be admitted in evidence and considered alongside other evidence led at the trial to determine its probative value.
– Kekere-Ekun JSC. Berende v. FRN (2021)
The law is trite that in circumstance where the prosecution seeks to tender the confessional statement of an accused person and it is objected to and challenged on the ground that it was not made voluntarily, a trial within trial is conducted for the sole purpose of finding out if the statement was made voluntarily or whether the confessional statement was extracted from the accused by force or threat of punishment or by any form of inducement. If at the end of the trial within trial the trial Judge is satisfied that the confessional statement was not voluntary, such a statement is not admissible in evidence. If on the other hand the statement is adjudged voluntarily made, it is admitted in evidence. In both cases the trial Judge should rule on it accordingly and that brings the trial within trial to an end and the main trial continues. SeeIbeme v The State (2013) 10 NWLR (pt 1362) 333, Solola & Anor v State (2005) 11 NWLR (pt 937) 460, Federal Republic of Nigeria v Iweka (2013) 3 NWLR (pt 1341) 285.
— J.I. Okoro, JSC. Chibuike Ofordike V. The State (SC.695/2016, 2019)
Be it noted that a confessional statement becomes proof of an act when it is true, positive and direct. – Onu JSC. Peter v. State (1997)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry