Confessional statement article

The Law & You; The Effect of a Confessional Statement under the Nigerian Law By  Evans Ufeli A confessional statement is any statement or remark admitting or acknowledging all facts necessary for conviction of a crime, which would be distinct from a mere admission of certain facts that, if true, would still not, by themselves, satisfy all he elements of the offense. The Evidence Act defines confession as follows: “A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime” Most decided cases in Nigeria defined confession by reference to the provision of Section 28 of the Evidence Act, as “an admission made by the accused stating or suggesting that he committed the crime which is the subject of the charge preferred against him. It is the acknowledgment of the crime by the accused” . On how significant the confession of an accused is, in the case of KARIMU SUNDAY V. THE STATE (2017) LPELR-42259(SC) the court held that “…an accused person can be convicted on his confession alone once it is properly proved and admitted in evidence”. While going further to talk about the effect of a confessional statement even when same is purported to be retracted, the court said: “in those extra-judicial statements, confessional in nature it is to be taken as the best evidence against the accused as they contained admissions of his guilt. An attempt to retract may not augur well especially when  there is  nothing stopping the statement from being admitted and being given the probative value it deserved, being direct and positive. Also not to be lost sight of is that it is sufficient in the circumstance alone to sustain a conviction”. On whether the Court can convict on the basis of a retracted statement, the court also had this to say; “The circumstance of the present case is the existence of a confessional statement retracted at the trial. Can the Court convict on such a confessional statement? The law is that the court can convict on a confessional statement retracted at the trial if satisfied that the accused person to the circumstances which give credibility to the contents of the confession. But it is desirable that; before a conviction can be properly based on such a retracted confession, there should be some corroborative evidence outside the confession which would make it probable that the confession was true”. Stating further on the effect of a denied confessional statement, the court posited that; “Furthermore a denial of a confessional statement by itself is no reason for rejecting the statement. The confession where voluntary, is admissible once the statement complies with the law and rules governing the method for taking it and it is tendered and not objected to by the defence, whereby it is admitted as exhibit, then it is good evidence and no amount of retraction will vitiate its admission as a voluntary statement. The denial is only a matter to be considered in deciding the weight to attach to the confession”   On the nature and importance of confessional statement in criminal trials, Niki Tobi JSC in a case stated that, “the best evidence for purposes of conviction is confession to the commission of the crime by the accused person.” In other words, a free and voluntary confession provides the most satisfactory evidence of guilt for it is generally accepted as a presumption that no rational human being will make admissions prejudicial to his interest and safety if the facts confessed are not true. In the case of SAMUEL AYO OMOJU v THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA where the accused, a Pastor, was arraigned and charged with exporting 1.1 kg of cocaine worth ten thousand US Dollars, the Supreme Court acknowledged the following statement of the accused person as a true confessional statement: “I was in the Hotel until Sunday when Areh came with 118 wraps on something inside shinning leather which I swallowed all with water. Around 9.00 pm he came to the Hotel and brought me to the Airport and I checked in one luggage and I climbed upstairs for the final screening and went down… After the screening I was taken downstairs to their office. In the office, I was told that that I am being suspected and I will be under observation until I go to toilet to determine if I am carrying drugs. In their office, I went to toilet about 4.05 am and excreted forty-three (43) pieces of hard drug substance… All in all the total of 118 pieces of hard drug cocaine were excreted by me. The drugs were given to me by Mr. Areh at Dreamland Hotel”. A confession is generally made in writing to the police officer or other law enforcement agent during investigation. However, it can be made orally and any oral confession does not carry less weight than that made in writing once the witness of the one to whom it was made is accepted by the court. Hence, in the case of MOSES JUA v THE STATE, the Supreme Court held that a conviction on the oral confession is proper in law. For a full admission of guilt to qualify as a confession, it must be direct and positive as far as the charges are concerned. Hence it was held in the case of GBADAMOSI v THE STATE, that for a statement of the accused to constitute a confession, the statement must admit or acknowledge that the maker of the statement committed the offences for which he is charged and in so doing be clear, precise and unequivocal. In other words, a statement made under caution by the accused person becomes confessional once it admits the charge or creates the impression that the accused committed the offence charged. Hence, in the case of MUSTAPHA & ORS v THE STATE, the Supreme Court held that once there exists a confessional statement which is direct, cogent and unequivocal to the fact that the accused committed the offence, the prosecution need not prove the offence any longer for the confession is enough proof of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Types of Confessions There are two types of confessions, namely, Formal or judicial confessions and Informal or Extra Judicial confessions. Judicial confessions are made in court before a Judge or Magistrate or other tribunal. An example is where the accused pleads guilty to a charge upon same being read to him by the court. Hence, a judicial confession can be defined as a plea of guilty on arraignment, if made freely by a person in a fit state of mind. Once the plea of guilty is not made by the accused on arraignment, his right to remain silent is preserved by the provisions of the Constitution, which states that: “No person who is tried for a criminal offence shall be compelled to give evidence at the trial”. It is noteworthy that the provision in section 160 (b) that “failure of any person charged with an offence to give evidence shall not be made subject of any comment by the prosecution” has been repealed by the new Evidence Act 2011. Informal or Extra judicial confessions on the other hand are made out of court during investigations to police officers or other law enforcement agent. Hence, any statement made outside the court by an accused person or a suspect tending to show that he is guilty of the offence for which he is charged or suspected is called an informal confession. Extra judicial confessions, unlike the judicial confessions must pass the strict test of admissibility. Hence, in SAIDU v THE STATE, it was stated that the rules of admissibility of confessional statement of an accused are stringently observed and exclude the admission of such confessional statement by consent or from the bar even if without objection by the defence.