ADAMU MOHAMMED V THE STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-01) Legalpedia 84655 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

Fri Jan 31, 2025

Suit Number: SC.27/2014

CORAM

Mohammed Lawal Garba Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Tijjani Abubakar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Stephen Jonah Adah – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Jamilu Yammama Tukur-Justice of supreme court

PARTIES

ADAMU MOHAMMED

APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case involves an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Judicial Division in Appeal No: CA/K/159/C/2009, delivered on September 18, 2013. The appellant, Adamu Mohammed, along with three other accused persons, was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging by the trial Court in Charge No. KDH/KAD/10C/2006 for offenses of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery, punishable under Sections 6(b) and 1(2)(b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision Act).

The appellant was arraigned on January 10, 2007, and pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution called three witnesses and tendered several exhibits, including the appellant’s extra-judicial confessional statement (Exhibits 2 and 2A). The appellant made a No-Case Submission which was overruled by the trial Court. In his defense, the appellant testified as DW2 and called two additional witnesses. The trial Court convicted the appellant and his co- accused persons and sentenced them to death by hanging. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial Court’s judgment. Still dissatisfied, the appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

The appeal was dismissed.
The Court held that the appellant's confessional statement was voluntary, and that the word “obtained “used by PW2 did not suggest that the statement was made involuntarily.
The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the trial Court and Court of Appeal on the admissibility and probative value of the confessional statement.
The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

ISSUES

Whether the alleged confessional statement of the appellant (Exhibits 2 and 2A) were properly admitted in evidence in view of the fact that the 2nd prosecution witness admitted in his evidence that he “OBTAINED” the statement from the appellant.
Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, the lower Court was right in affirming the sentence and conviction of the appellant.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – PURPOSE AND PROPER USE:

“In Nigerian law, a preliminary objection is a procedural tool used to challenge the competence of a case often raising legal issues aimed at determining the appeal in limine. In essence, a preliminary objection normally seeks to prevent the Court from proceeding with an appeal that is entire fundamentally defective or incompetent. It is a vital procedural mechanism to ensure that only appeals that comply with legal and procedural requirements are entertained.”– Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS:

“The purport of a preliminary objection to an appeal is the termination or truncation of the appeal in limine. A preliminary objection should only be filed against the hearing of an appeal and not against one or more grounds of appeal when there are other grounds to sustain the appeal which purported preliminary objection is, therefore, not capable of truncating the hearing of the appeal. Thus, a preliminary objection to an appeal is only raised to the hearing of the appeal, and not to a few grounds of appeal.” –– Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – PROPER FOCUS ON JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES:

“A preliminary objection is potent and appropriate when the issue of competence of the processes or lack of jurisdiction is involved.” — Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – RELEVANCE AS BASIS:

“In our law, it is an elementary rule of evidence that relevance is the main focus or purpose for admissibility of evidence. Once any evidence is relevant to the issue before the Court, it is patently admissible.”– Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – GENERAL PRINCIPLE:

“It follows therefore, that admissibility of evidence particularly documents, depends, on the purpose for which it is being tendered. It is therefore, settled that the extra-judicial statements made by a prisoner are admissible in evidence at the trial of the prisoner, and if it is evident that they were made voluntarily by the prisoner, such evidence becomes admissible against him.”– Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

VOLUNTARINESS OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – OBJECTION MUST BE TIMELY:

“The confessional statement of the appellant was recorded in Hausa Language but translated into English Language as in Exhibit 2A. It is worthy and remarkable that the appellant all through the trial did not challenge his confessional statement. His counsel, Chief Evans, was in Court and when the statement was tendered, he said he had no objection to the admission of the confessional statement of the appellant since the appellant did not raise any complaint or challenge the voluntariness of the confession at the time of tendering of the said statement, any attempt thereafter, to renege on the statement is nothing but an after thought and completely of no value to the case before the Court.”– Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – SUFFICIENCY FOR CONVICTION:

“It is fundamental and well established in our law that a Court can convict an accused person based on his confessional statement if the statement is voluntary, cogent and straightforward.”– Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

NATURE OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – STATUTORY DEFINITION:

“By virtue of the provisions of Section 28 of the Evidence Act, confessional statement is tenable and admissible. The section describes a confessional statement thus:- ‘A confession is an admission made at any time by a person, charged with a crime tending to show or suggest the inference that he committed the crime’? Confessional statement is the best evidence to ground conviction and, as held in a number of cases, it can be relied upon solely where voluntary.” — Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

SUBSEQUENT DENIAL OF CONFESSION – EFFECT ON ADMISSIBILITY:

“A
confessional statement of the appellant that was free and voluntary regardless
of the facts that he (the appellant) subsequently resiled from his voluntary
confession at trial, is good evidence to ground conviction. A confessional
statement does not become inadmissible simply because the accused denied having
made it. This has been the settled position in our jurisprudence of criminal
justice.” — Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WEIGHT AS EVIDENCE:

“The
confessional statement of an accused, where it is direct, positive and
unequivocal as to the commission of the crime charged, is the best evidence and
can be convicted on his confessional statement alone, where the confession is
constant with other ascertained facts which have been proved. Confession in
criminal procedure is the strongest evidence of guilt on the act of an accused
person. It is stronger than evidence of an eye-witness because the evidence
comes from the horse’s mouth who is the accused person.” –– Per STEPHEN
JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.

CONFESSION AS SUFFICIENT PROOF – NO CORROBORATION NEEDED: “

“There
is no better evidence and there is no further proof. Therefore, where an
accused person confesses to a crime in the absence of an eye-witness to the
killing, he can be convicted on his confession alone once the confession is
positive, direct and properly proved. In other words, a free and voluntary
confession of guilt, direct and positive and if duly made and satisfactorily
proved, is sufficient without corroborative evidence, so long as the Court is
satisfied as to the truth of the confession.” — Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH,
J.S.C.

MEANING OF “OBTAINED” IN CONTEXT OF STATEMENTS – NOT INDICATIVE OF COERCION:

“The lower Court found
like the trial Court that the appellant made the confession in Exhibit 2, 2A
and accepted the confession and upheld the conviction of the appellant. I also
from the facts before the Court believe the confession of the appellant was
free and voluntary. In the face of this concurrent findings of the two lower Courts,
the appellant set up a pony and funny innuendo to suggest that the phrase of
the PW2 saying he obtained the statement of the appellant meant the statement
was not voluntary. This innuendo is baseless.” — Per STEPHEN JONAH ADAH,
J.S.C.

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS – WHEN SUPREME COURT WILL NOT INTERFERE:

“The
Appellant has woefully failed to demonstrate that the concurrent findings by
the trial and lower Courts on the admissibility of the Appellant’s confessional
statement; Exhibits 2 and 2A, resulted from misapprehension of the applicable
principles of law, substantive or procedural to the facts and occasioned a
miscarriage of Justice.” — Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C