ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS OF AN ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL CASE, RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS OF AN ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL CASE, RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. In OKANLAWON Vs. THE STATE (2015) 9 SCM 159, p. 184 paras B-G, the Supreme Court held that confessional statements must be positive and direct, such that where there was any discrepancy in it, trial within trial ought to be conducted to ascertain its authenticity and among other things: a)- that he did not make any such statement; b)- that he was not correctly recorded; or c)- that he was unsettled in mind at the time he made the statement; or d)- that he was induced to make the statement. However, the Police have been cautioned lately by the Supreme Court on the use of torture in obtaining extra-judicial statements during criminal trials. In OWHORUKE Vs. C.O.P. (2015) 7 SCM 242, p. 255, paras D-H, the Supreme Court recommends thus: "... It is seriously recommended that confessional statements should be taken from suspect if, and only if his counsel is present, or in the presence of a legal practitioner. Where this is not done such a confessional statement should be rejected by the court." From the foregoing, all Law Enforcement Agencies must realise the need to take confessional statements of suspects while their Counsel are present. The Evidence Act 2011 as amended particularly at Sections 29 further use the word oppression and by that it include any kind of torture but not limited to torture alone.