CORAM

---

John Inyang Okoro – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Tijjani Abubakar – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Jamilu Yammama Tukur – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Mohammed Baba Idris – Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

AYOOLA ADEKUNLE

APPELLANTS 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, MURDER, CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS, BURDEN OF PROOF, EVIDENCE LAW, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CORROBORATION, EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, Ayoola Adekunle, was arraigned before the High Court of Ogun State on a one count charge of murder contrary to Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code, Laws of Ogun State of Nigeria 2006. The charge alleged that on or about 4th March 2009 at Isale Owoade Egba in the Abeokuta Judicial Division, the Appellant murdered Sola Folorunsho.

The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The Prosecution called three witnesses: PW1 testified that she knew both the accused and deceased and witnessed the Appellant hit the deceased with a cutlass before running away. She screamed for help and the deceased was rushed to the hospital where he was confirmed dead. PW2, a police officer, testified that she was present when the Appellant wrote his statement in Yoruba language which she translated to English and countersigned. PW3, also a police officer, confirmed that the deceased died at the hospital and testified that the Appellant came to the police station at about 10:00pm with a cutlass declaring that he wanted to report a case.

In his defense, the Appellant testified that he did not kill the deceased and was in his house when about 5 people came to knock at his door wanting to play music in front of his house. He refused since it was past midnight, but they attacked him with an iron rod. He ran to safety and reported to the police, where he was detained. He admitted knowing the deceased but maintained his innocence.

The trial court delivered judgment on 6th January 2014, finding that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt by establishing all ingredients of murder. The Appellant was found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction on 30th June 2016, holding that the Respondent proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the Appellant had unconsciously corroborated evidence against him by going to the police station with the cutlass. The Supreme Court dismissed the final appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution proved all three ingredients of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The Court found that the first ingredient (death of a human being) was established through PW1’s eyewitness testimony, PW3’s confirmation at the hospital, and the Appellant’s confessional statement.

4. The second ingredient (that death was caused by the accused’s act) was proved through PW1’s direct eyewitness evidence and the Appellant’s confessional statement admitting he hit the deceased with a cutlass.

5. The third ingredient (intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm) was established by the nature of the weapon used – a cutlass being a dangerous weapon capable of causing grievous harm.

6. The Court held that there were no material contradictions in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies that would warrant discrediting them.

7. The Court found that the Appellant’s confessional statement was voluntary, direct, and positive, and that a conviction could be based solely on such confession even if later retracted.

8. The conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal was upheld.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the contradictions in the testimonies of the Respondent witnesses were material enough to have the Court discredit them?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

THREE INGREDIENTS OF MURDER OFFENCE

---

“On the offence of murder, which the Appellant is charged with, the prosecution could use any of the under mentioned methods to prove murder: (a) Through evidence of eye witness or witnesses (b) Through voluntary confessional statement of the accused or accused persons, and (c) Through circumstantial evidence… Any of the above mentioned methods could be adopted by the prosecution to establish the offence of murder by proving the under listed ingredients of the offence of murder, namely:- (1) The death of a human being (2) That the death was caused by the act commission of the accused person and (3) That the act of the accused was done intentionally or with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was the probable consequence.” – Per Court in OKERE VS. IGP (quoted by MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.)

 

---

ESTABLISHMENT OF DECEASED’S IDENTITY

---

“In PRINCEWILL VS. THE STATE (1994) 6 NWLR (PT. 353) AT 715, this Court held per Iguh, JSC that the simplest way of establishing the identity of a deceased person, the subject of a charge of murder or manslaughter, is evidence of identification by someone who knew the deceased while he was alive.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

 

---

CONVICTION BASED ON CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT ALONE

---

“The law is trite that an accused person can be convicted solely on his confession if the confession is positive and direct in the admission of the offence charged. In other words, voluntary confession of guilt whether judicial or extra judicial, if it is direct and positive is sufficient proof of the guilt and is enough to sustain a conviction, so long as the Court is satisfied with the truth of such a confession.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

 

---

EFFECT OF RETRACTING CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“Once, an extra-judicial confession has been proved as in this case to have been made voluntarily and it is positive and unequivocal, amounting to an admission of guilt (such as the Appellant’s confessional statement, Exhibit P6) a Court can convict on it even if the Appellant retracted or resiled from it at trial. Such an afterthought does not make the confession inadmissible. It is desirable but not mandatory that there is general corroboration of important incidents and not that retracted confession should be corroborated in each material particular.” – Per Court in ASIMI VS. STATE (quoted by MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.)

 

---

PROOF OF CAUSE OF DEATH

---

“The cause of death can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. The direct evidence required to prove the cause of death must be clear as to connect the deceased person with the act of the accused. The circumstantial evidence that will meet the requirements of the law of onus of proof, is the evidence that fixes the accused to the crime with sufficient cogency which excluded that someone else had committed the crime.” – Per Court in SANSANI VS. STATE (quoted by MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.)

 

---

INFERENCE OF INTENTION FROM WEAPON USED

---

“No one hits another human being with a cutlass and expects a smile or a party. A cutlass is a dangerous weapon capable of causing grievous harm when used to inflict wounds or pains. The Appellant is a male adult of a sound mind, who is expected to know the natural consequences of his actions. If the Appellant slapped the deceased and he died, we can subject this to the reasonable man’s test and say that he could not have meant to kill him because slaps naturally should not cause death. But using a cutlass on someone is totally different. I believe the Appellant intended to cause the death of the deceased.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

 

---

NON-ESSENTIALITY OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE

---

“It is trite law that medical evidence is not always essential, although desirable, to prove cause of death. Consequently, where medical evidence is lacking, the Court is perfectly entitled to infer the cause of death from the circumstances… Indeed, where the cause of death is obvious, as in the instant case, medical evidence may be unnecessary or can even be dispensed with or inferred.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

 

---

EFFECT OF NON-OBJECTION TO CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“First and foremost, when the confessional statement was being tendered by PW2, the Appellant’s counsel was present in Court and raised no objection to it. It was during the defence that the Appellant stated that he did not write the statement and just merely signed beneath it, thus amounting to denying ever making it. It is trite law that a Court can safely convict an accused person on a retracted confessional statement.” – Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.

 

---

CONVICTION ON RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“The confessional statement of an accused person, where same is found to be voluntary and unequivocal, provides the best evidence of the person’s guilt. Resiling from the statement does not make it unreliable. The Court can still admit and convict on a retracted confession if satisfied that the statement was indeed made by the accused person and the circumstances under which the statement was made guarantee the credibility of the content of the confessional statement.” – Per Court in MOHAMMED VS. STATE (quoted by MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.)

 

---

INFERENCE OF INTENTION FROM NATURE OF WEAPON AND WOUND

---

“It is trite law that the ingredient for the offence of murder would only crystalize when it is established that the accused person killed the deceased intentionally or had intention of causing the deceased grievious bodily harm… Intention to cause death here can be inferred from the weapon used and the nature of wound inflicted on the deceased… In this case, a machete cut to the back clearly reveals intention to either kill or cause greivious bodily harm. The Appellant can therefore not sustain his assertion that he did not mean to kill the deceased.” – Per JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

 

---

IMPLICATION OF NON-OBJECTION TO CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“The law is settled that where an accused person, like the Appellant in the instant case, fails to raise any objection to the admissibility of a confessional statement at the time of its tendering, the law implies that he agrees with everything in the statement and that it contains the truth on his role in the crime, and anything he says afterwards in the course of his oral evidence will be treated as an afterthought and discountenanced.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

CONVICTION SOLELY ON CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“The law is also settled that in situations where a confessional statement is admitted without objection, such as the above, a Court is entitled to convict an accused defendant solely on the basis of the confessional statement where the confession is direct, positive and unequivocal, so long as it is satisfied of its truth, even without corroboration. In such circumstances, there is no need for a trial Court to look for evidence outside the confessional statement.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

RELIABILITY OF ACCUSED’S STATEMENT AGAINST INTEREST

---

“This is premised on the reasoning that what an accused person says against his interest without police influence is most likely to be true… It is an accepted and settled principle of law that an accused person can be validly convicted on his confessional statement alone. Thus, once the Court is satisfied with the voluntariness of the statement, and it unequivocally admits the commission of the crime charged, it can freely convict. This is more so when, as in the instant case, the statement was admitted without objection.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

– Criminal Code, Laws of Ogun State of Nigeria 2006 – Section 319(1)

– Evidence Act, 2011 – Section 135

– Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) – Section 36(5)

– Evidence Act – Section 7

– OKERE VS. IGP (2021) LPELR – 53079 (SC)

– AGBOOLA V THE STATE (2013) LPELR 20652 (SC)

– OKEKE V THE STATE (1999) 2 NWLR (PT 590) 246

– AKINSUWA V. STATE (2019) LPELR – 47621 (SC)

– SUNDAY VS. STATE (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 548) PAGE 874

– PRINCEWILL VS. THE STATE (1994) 6 NWLR (PT. 353) AT 715

– KWAGHSHIR VS. THE STATE (1995) 3 NWLR (PT. 386) AT 664

– OGUDO VS. THE STATE (2011) 18 NWLR (PT. 1278) PAGE 1026

– NSOFOR VS. THE STATE (2005) ALL FWLR (PT. 242) PAGE 397

– ONAGORUWA VS. THE STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (PT. 303) PAGE 49

– OGELE VS. DARE (2008) LPELR – 3727

– FAGBENRO VS. AROBADI (2006) LPELR – 1227 (SC)

– ESONU CHUKWUNYERE VS. THE STATE (2017) LPELR – 43725

– MOHAMMED VS. STATE (2018) 5 NWLR (PT. 1613) PAGE 540

– UDOFIA VS. STATE (1984) LPELR – 3306 (SC)

– ISHOLA VS. UBN LTD (2005) 6 NWLR (PT. 922) PAGE 442

– MBACHU VS. STATE (2018) 17 NWLR (PT. 1649) PAGE 395

– MUSA VS. STATE (2009) 15 NWLR (PT. 1165) PAGE 467

– SOLOLA VS. STATE (2005) 11 NWLR (PT. 937) 460

– EDHIGERE VS. STATE (1996) 8 NWLR (PT. 464) 1

– ASIMI VS. STATE (2016) LPELR-40436 (SC)

– SANSANI VS. STATE (2022) LPELR – 57954 (SC)

– FRANK ONYENANKEYA VS. THE STATE (1964) NMLR 34

– LORI VS. THE STATE (1980) 8 – 11 SC 81

– TONARA BAKURI VS. THE STATE (1965) NMLR 163

– ADAMU KUMO VS. THE STATE (1968) NMLR 227

– OKON VS. THE STATE (1991) 8 NWLR (PT. 210) 424

– MOHAMMED VS. STATE (2014) LPELR – 22916 (SC)

– Orisadipe Vs. State (2019) LPELR-55915 (SC)

– Njoku & Ors. Vs. State (2012) LPELR- 20608 (SC)

– Adamu Vs. Kano Native Authority (1956)1 FSC.25

– Orisakwe Vs. State (2004) LPELR- 2764 (SC)

– Ejelikwu Vs. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt307)554

– Smart Vs State (2016) LPELR-40827(SC)

– Musa Vs State (2018) LPELR-43846(SC)

– Olugbemi Vs State (2023) LPELR 60331 (SC)

– Yelli Vs State (2023) 2 NWLR (Pt 1867) 39

– Lucky Vs State (2024) 9 NWLR (Pt 1944) 461

– Stephen Vs State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt 46) 978

– Yahaya Vs State (1986) 12 SC 282

– Oseni Vs State (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt 1293) 351

– Idoko Vs State (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt 1614) 117

– State Vs Ahmed (2020) LPELR 49497(SC)

– Effiom Vs State (2024) 10 NWLR (Pt 1946) 313

– Olanrewaju Vs State (2024) 11 NWLR (Pt 1950) 493

– Ikemson Vs State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt 110) 455

– Shurumo Vs State (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt 1226) 73

– Bassey Vs State (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt 1314) 209

– Alao Vs State (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt 1702) 501

– Musa Vs State (2024) 62371 (SC)

 

---

OTHER CITATIONS

---

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT