ABUBAKAR JOJI V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
March 16, 2025DOKA L.ABARE V HAMMA USMAN WAKIILIN MAGADA
March 16, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2023-05) Legalpedia 17006 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
Holden at Abuja
Thu May 18, 2023
Suit Number: CA/ABJ/CR/1340/2022
CORAM
ITA GEORGE MBABA JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI Justice OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
SYBRIL ONYEJI NWAKA GBAGI JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE APPELANT(S
APPELLANTS
1. ABUBAKAR SAIDU
2. ABBAS MOHAMMED
3. ABDULRAMAN USMAN
4. IBRAHIM ISA
5. GAMBO IBRAHIM RESPONDENT(S)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
There was an armed robbery incident at plot 74, 1st Avenue, Gwarimpa Estate, Abuja, where the occupant, Miss Janada Mamza, was robbed of her money and other valuables, the robbers were with offensive weapons, she raised a distress call and alarm, which attracted neighbors and people, including PW2, a police officer, who was close to the scene of the crime, and he arrested the 1st Accused (1st Respondent), as he (Accused) was running away. PW2 said the 1st Respondent was pursuing a girl from the residence of the robbery, who was shouting Thief! Thief!! And he PW2 chased him; in the course of the chase, the 1st Respondent threw away a locally made pistol he was holding and he was eventually arrested.
It was the 1st Respondent who volunteered the names of the other robbers, in the course of investigation, and they (2nd to 5th Respondents) were picked up. Each of the Respondents had made confessional statement to the police, which were admitted as evidence (as Exhibits CT A&B – CT5), without objection by the Respondents.
The trial Court had discharged and acquitted the Respondents, on the grounds that they had retracted their confessional statements at the trial, as they said they did not make statements and/or same were induced, or obtained by torture. The trial Court also said that the failure to call the nominal complainant (victim of the robbery) was fatal to the case of the prosecution, despite the fact that her statement to the Police, reporting the crime, was tendered in evidence as Exhibit CT6.
Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant lodged the instant appeal.
HELD
Appeal allowed
ISSUES
Whether, upon a dispassionate evaluation of the entire evidence adduced before the trial Court vis-à-vis the applicable laws, the appellant proved its case against the Respondents, and if so, whether the trial Court was not wrong when it discharged and acquitted the Respondents on all counts of the charge against them?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CRIMINAL CHARGE – WAYS OF PROVING A CRIMINAL CHARGE – ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF ARMED ROBBERY
As ably submitted by counsel on all sides, there are three basic ways of proving a criminal charge in Court, namely:
1. By evidence of an eye witness;
2. By confessional statement, adjudged voluntarily made by the accused person, admitting the commission of the offence;
3. By circumstantial evidence, pointing, conclusively and positively, at the accused person as the person to bear the guilt for the criminal act or omission.
Of course, sometimes, these three ways (or two of them) overlap, or coalesce to established the charge by the prosecution, to further block escape route for the accused person. See the case of HASSAN VS THE STATE (2021) LPELR -56572 (CA), where we held:
“It is also the law, that where the various ways of proving the commission of offence coalesce or are established in a given case, it becomes difficult for the accused (Appellant) to get out of the entrapment.
Thus, where evidence of eye witness account combines with a confessional statement and perhaps with strong circumstantial revelations to give effect to a conviction, Appellant will have serious difficulties impeaching the conviction. See the case of Uhara Vs The State (2021) LPELR – 55512 CA, Solomon Manger Vs C.O.P. FCT (2021) LPELR – 53466 (CA).”
See also SULEIMAN VS THE STATE (2023) LPELR – 60049 (CA), SHEHU VS JIGAWA STATE (2022) LPELR -59330 (CA), WADARI VS JIGAWA STATE (2022) LPELR -59332 (CA), UGBOJI VS THE STATE (2017) LPELR -43427 (SC) and the case of ASEKERE VS STATE (2022) LPELR – 56863 (SC), which related to proof of armed robbery, and my Lord, Abba-Aji, JSC said:
“The Appellant as usual, denied the armed robbery and introduced alibi. Hence, the need for the Respondent to prove the commission of the crime against him. In proving armed robbery against the Appellant, the 3 ways of proving a crime in Court must be resorted to, which are: (1) Direct evidence. (2) Confessional statement/statements made by the accused, and (3) Circumstantial evidence. See Per NGWUTA, JSC, in BILLE V. STATE (2016) LPELR- 40832(SC) (P. 15, PARAS. A-B).”
Of course, to establish offence of armed robbery, the prosecution must establish, that:
1. There was a robbery.
2. The robbery was carried out with the use of arms – offensive weapons, like gun, knife, stick etc.
3. That the accused person took part in the robbery.
See the case of UHARA VS THE STATE (2021) LPELR – 55612 (CA), where it was held:
“Counsel on both sides have agreed and cited judicial authorities as to what constitutes offence and ingredients of offence of armed robbery, that it must be established that there was a robbery or series of robberies, that the robbery was done with arms, or offensive weapons, and that the defendant (or Appellant) participated in the robbery or was one of the robbers. See the case of ONYENYE VS STATE (2012) 15 NWLR (PT.1324) 586, BOZIN VS STATE (1986) 2 NWLR (PT.8) 465, OPEYEMI VS STATE (2019) LPELR – 48764 (SC), OYEBOLA VS STATE (2008) ALL FWLR (PT.402) 1175, BELLO VS STATE (2007) 10 NWLR (PT.1043) 563. SEE ALSO THE CASE OF IGHALO VS THE STATE (2016) LPELR – 40840 SC, where it was held: “Taking the yardstick on the expected standard of proof and juxtaposing it to the essential ingredients of the offence of arm robbery, to which that standard is to be met and the stated elements of the offence are thus: (1) That there was a robbery; (2) That the robbery was executed with the use of offensive weapons, and another way of saying so is that the said robbery was an armed robbery and; (3) That the accused person participated in it. Those elements above, have to co-exist and established beyond reasonable doubt. See AWOSIKA VS STATE (2010) 9 NWLR (PT.1198) 40 AT 71 – 73.” The law is also trite, that such offence and, in fact, any crime, can be established by means of direct evidence of eye witness(es), or by confessional evidence of the accused person, adjudged voluntarily and freely made, and/or by circumstantial evidence, which is cogent and credible, pointing conclusively at the accused person as one to bear the guilt for the offensive act/omission. See AMOS VS THE STATE (2018) LPELR – 44694 (SC); AWO VS THE STATE (2020) LPELR – 50619 CA.”
See also DAWAI VS STATE (2017) LPELR – 43835 (SC), where it was held:
“By Section 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1990, armed robbery takes place where at the time of the robbery, the offender is armed with any firearms or any offensive weapon or is in company with any person so armed at or immediately before or immediately after the robbery, and the said offender wounds or uses any personal violence to any person. The essential ingredients of the offence of armed robbery which prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt to secure the conviction of an accused person include the following: – 1. that there was indeed a robbery or series of robberies; 2. that the robbers were armed with dangerous weapons; and 3. that the accused person was the robber or one of the robbers. See Afolalu v. The State (2010) 16 NWLR (pt. 1220) 584, Emeka v. The State (2014) LPELR – 23020 (SC), (2014) 13 NWLR (pt. 1425) 614, Musa Ikaria v. The State (2012) LPELR – 15533 (SC) (2014) 1 NWLR (pt. 1389) 639, Agugua v. The State (2017) LPELR – 42021 (SC). In order to establish or prove the above ingredients of the offence of armed robbery, the prosecution’s evidence may flow from any of the following ways: – (i) The confessional statement of the accused which has been duly tested, proven and admitted in evidence. (ii) By circumstantial evidence which is complete, cogent and unequivocal and leads to an irresistible conclusion that the accused and no other person committed the offence charged. (iii) By direct evidence of eye witnesses who actually saw the accused committing the offence.” Per OKORO, JSC. – Per I. G. Mbaba, JCA
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHEN THE DEFENDANT RETRACTS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
The law is that although a direct confessional statement is good evidence in itself which may not require corroboration, where the Defendant retracts such statement in the course of his evidence, the Court must warn itself from relying wholly on such a statement – see SANO VS. STATE (2018) LPELR – 44715 (CA).” – Per I. G. Mbaba, JCA
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHEN THE DEFENDANT RETRACTS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
The law is that although a direct confessional statement is good evidence in itself which may not require corroboration, where the Defendant retracts such statement in the course of his evidence, the Court must warn itself from relying wholly on such a statement – see SANO VS. STATE (2018) LPELR – 44715 (CA).” – Per I. G. Mbaba, JCA
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – APPROPRIATE TIME TO CHALLENGE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – CONDUCT OF THE COURTS IN RELATION TO CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS
Of course, the law appreciates the tendency of an accused person to deny or resile from the Confessional Statement he earlier made to the Police, at the investigation of the charge against him, when giving evidence in Court. But often times such denial or retraction comes as an after- thought, in a desperate effort to escape the stark consequences of his wrong conduct. Sometime too, the retraction, or denial of the Confessional Statement is an opportunity to expose the unorthodox or unlawful method employed by the prosecution (Police) to secure the Confessional Statement; where it was induced or obtained by threats and torture. See ABU VS THE STATE (2021) LPELR – 55224 (CA). Of course, where a confessional statement was induced by the prosecution, and was not made, voluntarily by the accused person, the law has provided the accused person the wherewithal to raise this, and challenge/expose the unlawful method used to obtain the confessional statement. And the accused person is expected to raise an objection to the admission of the alleged confessional statement, at the point of producing same for tendering as Exhibit. By law, where an accused person fails to challenge the tendering of the alleged confessional statement, at the time of admission of same, as Exhibit, to call for a trial-within-trial, to prove the status or veracity of the confessional statement, he is deemed to have admitted the admission of the process in evidence, without complaint, and so cannot attack the process (confessional statement), subsequently, when he gives evidence, or by his Counsel, at address stage. He (Accused) would have forfeited his chance to challenge the competence of the confessional statement, as attacking it, thereafter, would be regarded as an afterthought. And a Counsel, who fails to raise objection to the admission of a procured or induced Confessional Statement, cannot be heard to raise objection to the process or challenge it in his address, having allowed it to come into evidence, unchallenged. The judicial decision on this position of the law, is replete. See the case of AJIBADE VS. STATE (2012) LPELR – 15531 SC (per Ogunbiyi JSC): “Where a confessional statement is therefore admitted, without any objection, the irresistible inference is that same was made voluntarily and a Court can rightly convict on the basis of the admission contained therein.” See also OSSAI VS. PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2022) LPELR – 57297 (SC). "As has been earlier indicated, Exhibit A2, was received in evidence, without objection, wherein the Appellant confessed to the commission of the crime. The implication is that the Court can utilize such a confessional statement, alone, in convicting an accused person, even in the absence of corroboration. However, as rightly held by the Court below, the offence was not an armed robbery, as the Appellant was consistent. In Exhibit A2 that toy guns were used in the commission of the crime. They therefore do not fall within the definition of "ARMS", which refers to any offensive weapon made or adopted for causing injury, and includes metal, cutlass, matchete, guns, knives e.t.c in EGHAREVBA V THE STATE (2016) LPELR-40029 SC, this Court reiterated the above principle when it held inter alia: "Once a confessional statement is tendered and admitted without objection by the defence, it is good evidence and can be relied upon. The Court can even utilize it, alone, place a conviction without corroboration even if the Appellant had retracted the making thereof." Per ABOKI, JSC (Pp. 20-21, paras. B-A) In the case of GAMBO SULE VS. KANO STATE (2022) LPELR – 57542 (CA), the appropriate time to challenge the admissibility of Confessional Statement was clearly stated, as follows and it was made clear that such evidence is the best evidence: “Of course, in criminal trials, the appropriate time to raise objection against admission of a confessional statement, is at the tendering of the said statement by the prosecution, and the Accused person, or his Counsel, is expected to raise such objection, timeously, to enable the trial Court consider the need to conduct a trial-within-trial. See the case of OFORDIKE VS THE STATE (2019) LPELR-46411 SC, where the Supreme Court held: "The learned Counsel for the Respondent made it clear that denial of making a confessional statement is not synonymous with alleging that it was involuntarily made which I agree totally. This much was held by the Court below in its judgment as found on page 139 of the record as follows:- "In this appeal under consideration, it is clear on record that the appellant did not through his counsel and during the trial, particularly at the point when the prosecution applied to tender the said confessional statement object to its admissibility on the grounds that it was involuntarily made or obtained from him with coercion or as a result of threat to his life or promise of any advantage. In view of the foregoing, a trial within trial is unnecessary and the trial Court was right in its judgment." I agree entirely with the position taken by the Court below because, as I have stated above, a trial within trial is necessary where the voluntariness of the making of a confessional statement by an accused person is in issue or raised by an accused person or his counsel. Where an accused person admits making the statement but contends or asserts that he did not make it voluntarily, but under duress or some other alleged influence, then a trial with trial will be conducted. Where however as in this case, the objection to the admissibility of accused confessional statement is based on the grounds that it was not read over to him and that he did not make it, the statement is treated as a voluntary statement and is admissible without the Court holding a trial within trial which is necessary only where the issue of involuntariness is raised. See ONYENYE V THE STATE (2012) 15 NWLR (pt. 1324) 586 at 619 paragraphs A-C where this Court set out the circumstances and effect of confessional statements obtained by duress and those merely retracted as follows: –
1. Where the accused has clearly expressed his ordeal in the process of obtaining the statement accredited to him in effect that it was obtained by force, tricks or undue influence or any non-recognizable legal ways, there would be need for a trial within trial. 2. Where the accused retracted his confessional statement on the ground that it was not read to him before he signed it or that he never made it at all, the requirement of a trial within trial is not applicable…" Per OKORO, JSC only recently this Court had opportunity to re-state this principle of law, again, in the case of USMAN VS THE STATE (2022) LPELR-56762 (CA), when we said: "Only recently, we had course to restate the law in the case KABIRU BALA V THE STATE (2022) LPELR-56936, on confessional statement as the best evidence to work with and to convict on, once the statement is adjudged credible and made voluntarily by the accused person. We held, thus: "By law, a confessional statement is enough evidence, and, in fact the best evidence, to establish commission of offence, coming from the accused person, himself, where the confession is adjudged voluntarily made. See the case of UHARA VS THE STATE (2021) LPELR- 55512 (CA): "We have held several times that a confessional statement alone is a conclusive and sufficient evidence to establish conviction, and, in fact, the best evidence of the commission of the offence, coming directly from the accused person himself, and closing every door of defence against him, except where the issue/defence of provocation can be invoked. See FRN VS IWEKA (2011) LPELR-9350 SC, where it was held that confessional statement is the best evidence of proof of crime and can be accepted as satisfactory evidence, upon which alone the accused can be convicted. See also OGOALA VS THE STATE (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt.175) 509 at 534." See also AKINKUNMI VS. STATE (2022) LPELR – 57285 (SC): “It is now settled that the appropriate time to object to the admissibility of a confessional statement is at the point when the Prosecution seeks to tender same. Any objection raised to the admissibility of an extra-judicial confessional statement subsequent to its tendering and admission in evidence will be considered an afterthought. See BASSEY V. STATE (2019) LPELR – 46910 (SC), MUHAMMAD V. STATE (2017) LPELR – 42098 (SC), ODEH V. FRN (2008) LPELR -2205(SC). In the instant case, the Appellant's confessional statement, Exhibits 2, 2A and 7 were tendered without objection. The testimony of the appellant suggesting that he made the statement because he was tortured amounts to nothing more than afterthought." Per JAURO, JSC (P. 44, paras. A-D) We have also stated, several times, that where an accused person denies making any statement to the police, he cannot contest the Statement produced by the Police, as made by him, on the ground that it was obtained by inducement or torture. See the case of BALA VS KANO STATE (2022) LPELR -57475 (CA): “The law is trite, that upon denying making the confessional statement (Exhibit A1-A2), the Appellant lacked the vires to contest the facts and content of the document, as to whether, or not it was properly recorded, signed and/or admitted. Having denied making the statement, Appellant had distanced himself from it (the document) and it should not therefore bother him what the Court does with it. But the Court is competent to look at it (the statement) and admit it, if relevant to the case, and where the Court finds cause to believe that Appellant made the statement, then that would defeat the entire pretentious defence putoforn. In the recent case of YAMUSA Vs THE STATE (2022) LPELR-57094 (CA), delivered on 18/3/2022, we said: "One who asserts that he did not make any confessional statement to the Police is therefore not contesting the voluntariness of the statement produced by the Prosecution as made by him, and so there cannot be any call for trial-within-trial on the status or voluntariness of the statement." See also AKWUOBI VS THE STATE (2016) LPELR-41389 (SC), where it was held: "In this instant appeal, there is a confessional statement made by the appellant voluntarily which was tendered and admitted in evidence at the trial and marked Exhibit 4. Although the appellant denied making such statement or signing same, the trial Court rightfully in my view, did not bother to conduct a trial within trial since the appellant did not say that he made it under duress, torture, promise or any influence. This is because mere denial of making or signing a confessional statement by accused persons is not sufficient ground on which to reject its admissibility in evidence when properly tendered. See OKWESI VS. STATE (1995) NWLR 119; EZENGE VS. THE STATE (1999) 14 NWLR (pt.637)1. Also where an accused person merely disputes the correctness of a confessional statement or states that he made no statement at all, it is not necessary to conduct a trial within trial. See MADEJEMESI V THE STATE (2001) 5 SCNJ 59." Per SANUSI, JSC See also OFORDIKE VS THE STATE (2019) LPELR-46411(SC), where my Lord Okoro JSC said: "The learned counsel for the Respondent made it clear that denial of making a confessional statement is not synonymous with alleging that it was involuntarily made which I agree totally. This much was held by the Court below in its judgment as found on page 139 of the record as follows:- "In this appeal under consideration, it is clear on record that the appellant did not through his counsel and during the trial, particularly at the point when the prosecution applied to tender the said confessional statement object to its admissibility on the grounds that it was involuntarily made or obtained from him with coercion or as a result of threat to his life or promise of any advantage. In view of the foregoing, a trial within trial is unnecessary and the trial Court was right in its judgment." I agree entirely with the position taken by the Court below because, as I have stated above, a trial within trial is necessary where the voluntariness of the making of a confessional statement by an accused person is in issue or raised by an accused person or his counsel. Where an accused person admits making the statement but contends or asserts that he did not make it voluntarily, but under duress or some other alleged influence, then a trial with trial will be conducted. Where however as in this case, the objection to the admissibility in accused confessional statement is based on the grounds that it was not read over to him and that he did not make it, the statement is treated as voluntary statement and is admissible without the Court holding a trial within trial which is necessary only where the issue of involuntariness is raised.” See ONYENYE V THE STATE (2012) 15 NWLR (PT 1324) 586 AT 619 PARAGRAPHS A-C. – Per I. G. Mbaba, JCA
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHEN COUNSEL SHOULD RAISE OBJECTION TO CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
The learned counsel for the accused persons, at the trial Court, was not supposed to reserve any challenge he wanted to raise, till his address, as counsel’s address cannot take the place of credible evidence, needed to dislodge whatever credibility a confessional statements carries, and a Counsel is not properly located, in law, to raise objection(s) to confessional statements, and/or give reasons as to why the Court should not rely on same to convict the Respondents, alleging denial of making the confessional statements, voluntarily, or at all. This is because Counsels’ address, no matter how brilliant, cannot take the place of evidence, needed to establish a case. See the case of SHEKA VS BASHARI (2013) LPELR -21403 (CA): "The law is trite that Counsel's address, no matter how brilliant and ingenious, cannot take the place of evidence or replace the evidence on which the judgment was based. It cannot also substitute the case of the parties, on which the judgment was based. See the case of OYEKAN VS. AKINRINWA (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 459) 128, OJO VS. FRN (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1099) 467." –Per I. G. Mbaba, JCA
NOMINAL COMPLAINANT – WHETHER A NOMINAL COMPLAINANT HAS TO BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN COURT TO GIVE EVIDENCE
The Exhibit CT6 was the report (statement) Miss Janada Mamza lodged with the Police, on the armed robbery attack in her house and it was produced and tendered by the PW3 (IPO), who investigated the case and obtained the statement from the nominal complainant – Miss Mamza. The said document was therefore properly before the Court as credible evidence, showing the complaint of armed robbery by the nominal complainant. I do not think she had to be physically in Court to give life to the complaint (Exhibit CT6). And the said Exhibit CT6 was also admitted, without objection. (See page 133 of the Records of Appeal). I think the trial Court was therefore wrong to discard the Exhibit CT6, when it said: “In my view, to the extent that the said statement was not tendered by the maker who may then be cross-examined on its contents, the said document is of little or no probative value in this matter… The failure to call the maker of Exhibit CT6 renders it of no value in this proceedings and I so hold. I therefore discountenance it in its entirety.” See pages 201 – 202 of the Records of Appeal). By so holding, the trial Court appeared to have knocked off the foundation of the case, being a report of armed robbery by the said complainant – Miss Janada Mamza, simply because she did not appear, physically, to give evidence in Court on the robbery! I think that too was a perverse finding, especially as there was evidence by the PW3 (IPO), that the said Miss Janada Mamza had travelled to London (outside Nigeria) at the time of the hearing of the case, and there was credible evidence to support the armed robbery incident in her residence. – Per I. G. Mbaba,JCA
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – SIX TESTS TO BE APPLIED FOR CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – WHEN CONVICTION CAN BE BASED ON CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT ALONE
By law, a confessional statement is sufficient to lie conviction, where the same is adjudged voluntarily made, and even where it is retracted, the Court can still rely on it to convict, where other pieces of evidence disclosed, corroborate the confessional statement, and make it plausible. See the case of SAMAILA VS THE STATE (2023) LPELR -59348 (CA), MURTALA VS THE STATE (2022) LPELR – 58945 (CA) and NUHU VS THE STATE (2022) LPELR – 58946 (CA), where it was held: "The argument of Appellant's Counsel against the conviction of the Appellant on the basis of his confessional statement does not require the waste of judicial time to consider, in full, as the law has become trite, that Appellant can be convicted even on his confessional statement alone, where the same is adjudged relevant and voluntarily made, and properly before the Court, having been admitted without objection at the trial. See the recent case of SULE VS KANO STATE (2022) LPELR-57542 (CA), where we held: "By law, a confessional statement is sufficient to lie a conviction, even if retracted by Appellant, once the Court finds substance in it, and same is corroborated by other pieces of evidence. The evidence of the eyewitness account (PW1 and PW6) was strong to corroborate the confession of Appellant to robbery against the Appellant and were even alone, capable of establishing the offence, in my opinion. See the case of HUSSEIN VS THE STATE (2022) LPELR-57021 (CA), where we held: "Only recently, we had the course to restate the law in the case KABIRU BALA V THE STATE (2022) LPELR-56936, on confessional statement as the best evidence to work with and to convict on, once the statement is adjudged credible and made voluntarily by the accused person. We held, thus: "By law, a confessional statement is enough evidence, and, in fact the best evidence, to establish commission of offence, coming from the accused person himself where the confession is adjudged voluntarily made. See the case of UHARA VS THE STATE (2021) LPELR- 55512 (CA): "We have held several times that a confessional statement alone is conclusive and sufficient evidence to establish conviction, and, in fact, the best evidence of the commission of the offence, coming directly from the accused person himself, and closing every door of defence against him, except where the issue/defence of provocation can be invoked. See FRN VS IWEKA (2011) LPELR-9350 SC, where it was held that confessional statement is the best evidence of proof of crime and can be accepted as satisfactory evidence, upon which alone the accused can be convicted. See also OGOALA VS THE STATE (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt.175) 509 at 534." In that case of UHARA VS STATE (2021) LPELR -55512 (CA), this Court found substance in other pieces of evidence to find corroborating in the confessional statement and it was held: "…It is also obvious that the confessional statement by Appellant (Exhibit C) had agreed with the other pieces of evidence. See again the case of MANGER VS STATE (supra), on the consideration of a retracted confessional statement: "… Appellant had disowned the statements he made, on the ground of the same having been made under duress. I think in such a situation, the Court still had to consider the said statements (the content thereof) in the light of other pieces of evidence adduced in the case, to appreciate the claims of Appellants, whether, in fact, there was any truth in the allegation of threat to make the said statements. Thus, while treating the statements as having been retracted (or denied) by the accused person (Appellant), the Court had to look at, and consider other pieces of evidence, to see whether the rejected (retracted) statement agreed (or aligned) with the other pieces of evidence, to establish or disprove the charge with which the accused was charged. See the case of AYODELE IKUMONIHAN VS THE STATE (2018) LPELR-44362SC, where the apex Court said: "Now it is well established principle that the statement of the accused person to the Police is considered part of the case for the prosecution, whether it contains a confession or not, and whether the accused person resiles it at the trial or not – See EGBOGHONOME VS STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 306) 383 SC. It is also settled that the Court can convict on the retracted confessional statement of the accused person, however, before this is done, the trial Court is enjoined to evaluate the confession of the Accused Person and his testimony at the trial, as well as, other evidence adduced. This would entail the trial Court examining the new version of events presented by the accused person that is different from his retracted confession, and satisfy itself that the statement was free, voluntary and properly taken and that it passed the six tests to be applied to a confession, as suggested by Ridley J., in the case of R Vs Sykes supra. The said tests have been adopted by this Court in a number of decided cases, including OGUDO VS STATE (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 1 SC, wherein this Court explained that in determining the weight to be attached to a confessional statement, retracted or not, the Court must ask itself the following: Is there anything outside the confession which shows that it may be true? – Is it corroborated in anyway? – Are the relevant statements of fact made in it most likely true as far as they can be listed? – Did the accused have an opportunity to commit the offence? – Is the confession possible? – Is the confession consistent with other facts, which have been ascertained and established? In effect, although the Court can convict only on the extra-judicial confessionalstatement of the accused person, it is desirable to find independent evidence, that is to say, to have some evidence outside the confession, however slight, of circumstances which make it probable that the said confession was true. See QUEEN VS ITULE (supra), R VS KANU (supra) and EDHIGERE VS STATE (supra) Per Augie J.S.C…" – Per I. G. Mbaba, JCA
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHEN AN ACCUSED PERSON CAN BE CONVICTED ON CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT ALONE
An accused person can be convicted on his own confessional statement without corroboration if it was direct and positive and same made voluntarily. See the case of Thomas Akpan Ekong Vs. The State (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 685) 383. Where however an objection is taken to the admissibility of a confessional statement at the point it was tendered, a procedure for trial within trial is conducted to determine the voluntariness of that statement. If no objection is taken at that point, the voluntariness of the statement cease to be an issue and the statement is admissible evidence. Ditto, to a statement retracted by the accused person. It is admissible evidence. In the case of the latter i.e in the case of a retracted confessional statement, the Court hearing the case in its judgment, is enjoined to look for outside evidence so as to ascertain the veracity or the truth of that statement. – Per S. T. Hussein, JCA
CASES CITED
NIL
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act, CAP R11 LFN 2004
4. Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA)
