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
It is trite, that the basic principle on admissibility in law, is whether the documents are duly pleaded; whether they are relevant to the facts in issue and whether they are admissible in Law? See the cases of AONDO AKAA V OBOT 7 OR 2021 SC; TORTI V UKPABI 1984 1 SC PG 370 and DIKIBO & ORS V IZIME 2019 LPELR – 48992-CA. There is no gainsaying the fact, that the certified true copies admitted by the court met the criteria on admissibility, as relevancy governs admissibility and the said documents were pleaded. See the cases of NAB LTD VS SHUAIBU (1991) 4 NWLR (PT. 186) 450, OKECHUKWU VS INEC (2014) 17 NWLR (PT. 1436) 256 AT 294-295.
— A. Osadebay, J. APC v INEC & Ors. (EPT/KN/GOV/01/2023, 20th Day of September, 2023)
I must note right away, that the admissibility or otherwise of an unregistered registerable instrument depends on the purpose for which it is being sought to be admitted. – Nweze JSC. Abdullahi v. Adetutu (2019)
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
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.’
I entirely agree with the contention of the Respondent’s counsel that the nature of the corroborative evidence required does not need to be direct evidence linking the Defendant to the commission of the offence. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient, particularly where it leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the Defendant. I agree with the Respondent’s counsel that a confessional statement is the best evidence in Nigerian criminal jurisprudence as it is direct evidence by the perpetrator giving the reasons for and how the offence was committed. So long as it is voluntary and it is a direct and positive admission of guilt, it can be used to convict even where it has been retracted.
– Ogunwumiju JSC. Junaidu v. State (2021)
However, in multiplicity of judicial authorities of this Court, it has been decided that before relying solely on confessional statement to convict an accused or in the process of evaluation of same, trial Courts are desired to subject the confessional statement to the following six tests; namely (a) Is there anything outside the confession to show that it is true? (b) Is it corroborated (c) Are the relevant statements made on it in fact true as they can be tested? (d) Was the accused one who had the opportunity of committing the offence? (e) Is the confession possible; and (f) Is it consistent with the other facts which have been ascertained and have been proved? Once a confessional statement is subjected to these six tests, this Court has held that same can be safely relied upon to ground a conviction. See Musa V State (2013) 2-3 SC (pt.II) 75 at 94; Nwachukwu vs The State (2007)7 SCM (pt.2) 447 at 455; Ikpo v State (1995)9 NWLR (pt.421)540 at 554.
— A. Sanusi, JSC. Bassey v State (2019) – SC.900/2016
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry