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)
SHARE ON
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)
By Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act 2011, documents are inadmissible in Court where the maker is an interested person and had made the documents when the proceedings are pending or anticipated.
– Yahaya, JCA. Petroleum Resources v. SPDC (2021)
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)
I agree with the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Appellant’s counsel had really misunderstood the fundamental requirement in criminal trial. A trial within trial is required in law where the objection to admissibility of a statement is based on the ground that it was not made voluntarily. In that case there has to be a trial within trial to determine the question of voluntariness. It is only where this is proved by the prosecution that the statement is admitted in evidence.
– Galadima, JSC. Kingsley v. State (2016)
The law is well settled that when a confessional statement is tendered without objection by an accused or his counsel, they cannot cry foul on appeal as it is deemed they were in agreement with what was tendered at the trial Court, see the cases of Shurumo v. State (2010) LPELR-3069(SC) and FRN v. Kayode-Beckley (2020) LPELR-50549(CA), neither the appellant nor his counsel objected to PW4 tendering exhibit A at the trial Court.
– EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A. Abdul v. State (2021)
A document is admissible in evidence if it is relevant to the facts in issue and admissible in law. The converse position is also the law, and it is that a document which is irrelevant to the facts in issue is not admissible. Documents which are tendered to establish facts pleaded cannot be rejected on the ground of irrelevancy in so far as they confirm the facts pleaded. See Oyetunji v. Akaniji (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 42) 461. In other words, a document which is consistent with the pleadings is admissible, if the document is admissible in law. —
N. Tobi JSC. Musa Abubakar v. E.I. Chuks (SC.184/2003, 14 DEC 2007)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry