MATTHEW UBA V. THE STATE
July 30, 2025NAFIU RABIU V KANO STATE
July 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1980) Legalpedia (SC) 48111
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Nov 28, 1980
Suit Number: SC. 75/1979
CORAM
SIR UDO UDOMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MOHAMMED BELLO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANIAGOLU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ANTHONY N. ANIAGOLU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
AUGUSTINE NNAMANI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CORPORAL JONA DAWA & ANOR APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The accused persons were charged for the murder of Mallam Abubakar Bawa, a district head in Benue state. The prosecution tendered their confessional statements in evidence leading to their conviction. They appealed contending the voluntariness of those confessions.
HELD
The court dismissed their appeal on grounds that the requisite procedure for deciphering a voluntary confession was adopted and then affirmed the conviction for culpable homicide and sentence of death passed by the High Court of Bauchi state on the 1st and 2nd appellants which the Federal Court of Appeal had affirmed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the confessional statements Exhibit 35 and Exhibit 37, the statements made by the 1st and 2nd appellants respectively to the police admitting the plan to kill and the act of killing were admissible in view of the allegations of threats and torture.2. Whether during the trial within a trial, the evidence called and adduced by the prosecution in rebuttal of the serious allegations of torture against some police officers was admissible in law and if admissible whether it did not constitute an erosion of the fairness of the trial and the standard of proof required to be satisfied by the prosecution.3. Whether the confession by the appellants in their confessional statements was unequivocal, direct and positive enough to prove the offence and constitute sufficient evidence to support the conviction particularly of the 2nd appellant.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
3. THE DUTY ON THE COURT WHERE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS CHALLENGED –
Where the admissibility of a statement is challenged on the ground that it was not made voluntarily, it is for the judge to determine whether or not the prosecution have established that it was made voluntarily to the extent that the judge is satisfied so that he feels sure about it. Where the question is raised it is for the judge to rule upon it after hearing any evidence on either side bearing upon any contested question of fact relevant to the determination. It is the duty of the trial Judge to hear any evidence as to the manner in which it is made at a trial within a trial in the absence of a jury. Per A.O. Obaseki, JSC
2. ADMISSIBILITY OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT –
No statement by an accused is admissible in evidence against him unless it is shown by the prosecution to have been a voluntary statement in the sense that it was not obtained from him by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage, exercised or held out to him by persons in authority. The principle is as old as Hale and in this country since the reception of English law into our system. Voluntariness is only a test of admissibility. It is not an absolute test of the truth. Per A.O. Obaseki, JSC
5. THE TESTS FOR DETERMINING THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS .
The questions a judge must ask himself are:
(1) Is there anything outside the confession to show that it is true?
(2) Is it corroborated?
(3) Are the relevant statements made in it of facts, true as far as they can be tested?
(4) Was the prisoner one who had the opportunity of committing the murder?
(5) Is his confession possible?
(6) Is it consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and have been proved?
If the confessional statement passes these tests satisfactorily, a conviction founded on it is invariably upheld unless other grounds of objection exist. If the confessional statement fails to pass the tests, no conviction can properly be founded on it and if any is found on it, on appeal, it will be hard to sustain. Per A.O. Obaseki, JSC
4. WHEN A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT CAN SUPPORT A CONVICTION –
The law is clear and settled on the point that for a confessional statement to attract and support a conviction, it must be proved to be free, voluntary, unambiguous, true, direct and positive. Per A.O. Obaseki, JSC
1. PURPOSE OF A TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL –
The purpose of a trial within a trial is not to determine whether the accused made the statement. It is to determine whether the statement is admissible. Per A.O. Obaseki, JSC
CASES CITED
1. The Queen v. Obiasa (1962) 1 All NLR
2. Edet Obosi v. The State (1965) NMLR 119
3. Paul Onochie & 7 Ors. v. The Republic (1966) NMLR 307
4. Obue v. The state (1976) 2 S.C. 141
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Penal Code Cap. 89 L/NN 1963.
2. Evidence Law of Northern Nigeria 1963 L/NN.
3. Evidence Act L/FN. 1958
4. Criminal Procedure (Statements to Police Officers) Rule Cap.. 30 L/NN 1963
5. Criminal Procedure Code Cap.30 L/NN1963
