CORAM

---

JOHN IN YANG OKORO     JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

LEKAN OLAOYE APPELLANTS

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS:
The Appellant who was the 1st accused person at the Lagos State High Court, was charged along with three other co-accused persons on four counts charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, murder and receiving stolen goods contrary to Sections 403A, 402(2) A, 319(1) and 420 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 32, Vol.2 Laws of Lagos State of 1994 respectively. During the trial, the prosecution sought to tender a confessional statement which it alleged was voluntarily made by the Accused/Appellant who objected to its admissibility on the grounds that the statement was not voluntarily made by him. The trial court conducted a trial within trial and the court held that the statement was made voluntarily and consequently admitted it in evidence. At the end of trial, the court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused persons. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the Appellant unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal, hence a further appeal has been lodged before this court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the eminent justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding admissible Exhibit H, the purported confessional statement of the appellant predominantly relied on in convicting the appellant of the charges of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, robbery and murder same having been established to have been obtained under duress, Whether apart from the Exhibit “H”, the prosecution led cogent and credible evidence in proof of the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PROOF OF CRIMINAL CASES – MODES OF PROOF OF CRIMINAL CASES

---

“These methods or modes of such proof are:-
(a)By testimonies of eye witness or witnesses who watched, heard or witnessed the commission of the crime by the accused person(s)
(b)Through confessional statement voluntarily made by the accused
(c)Through circumstantial evidence which clearly point to the sole fact that the accused and no other person committed the offence charged.
–

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – DUTY OF A COURT WHERE THERE EXISTS A DISPUTE AS TO THE VOLUNTARINESS OR OTHERWISE OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT SOUGHT TO BE TENDERED

---

“The law is trite and well settled too, that where there is dispute on whether or not an accused person made the statement sought to be tendered made same voluntarily, it is the duty of the trial court to try the voluntariness of such statement by conducting, a “trial within trial” otherwise known as ‘mini trial. See Olayinka v State (2007)9 NWLR (pt.l040)5; Obasi v State (1965)NWLR 119”.

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – DEFINITION OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“A confessional statement can be simply be defined as an admission by a person charged or an accused person accused of committing a crime at anywhere or at anytime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed such crime. See section 28 of the Evidence Act 2011 as amended. It is well settled law, that free and voluntary confession of guilt, alone by an accused person provided it is direct and positive and was duly made voluntarily, is sufficient to ground a conviction, since a confession always remains the best proof of what he had done. See Alabi v State (1993)7 NWLR (pt.307)5; Fabiyi v State (2015)6-7 SC (pt.I)83. Osetole & Anor vs State (2012)6 SCNJ 321; Nwachukwu vs The State (2002)7 SCNJ 230; Dogo v The State (2013)2-3 SC (pt.II)75 at 92-94”.

---

CONVICTION ON CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT -DUTY OF A COURT BEFORE CONVICTING AN ACCUSED PERSON ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“I am not unaware of the fact and it is even settled law that before a court convicts an accused person on his confessional statement alone, it must ascertain whether such confessional statement was voluntarily made and that it was also direct, positive, pungent and consistent with other facts as proved. See Jimoh vs State (2014)10 NWLR (pt 1414)105”.

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – REQUIREMENTS A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT MUST MEET IN ORDER TO BE RELIED ON BY TRIAL COURTS

---

“It is pertinent to say that this court has over the years evolved some requirements which a confessional statement must meet in order to be relied on by trial courts, Some of these requirements include the followings:-
(i) It must contain the words of caution
(ii) The cautionary words must have been administered in the language understood by the accused.
(iii) The statement was duly signed or thumb printed by the accused
(iv) That the statement was recorded in the language understood by the accused person
(v) That the statement was after being recorded read over and interpreted to the maker in the language it was recorded.
–

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – CONDITION UPON WHICH THE COURT CAN CONVICT AN ACCUSED PERSON SOLELY ON HIS CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

---

“It needs be stressed here, that a confession of an accused person to the commission of an offence plays a vital role in the determination of his guilt. Therefore, a trial court is free to convict him even on the confessional statement alone once that trial court is convinced that the confession is voluntary as in this instant case. I said so because by his confession, the accused (now appellant) had confirmed the commission of criminal responsibility in terms of mens rea and actus rea. See Okeke vs State (2003)15 NWLR (pt.842)25. It also needs to be emphasised and its also settled law too, that mere retraction of a voluntary confessional statement by an accused person, as in this instant case, does not render such statement inadmissible or worthless or untrue in considering his guilt. See Idowu v State [2000)7 SC (ptll)50; Silas v State (1996)1 NILR59.

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – NATURE OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT SUFFICIENT TO GROUND CONVICTION WITHOUT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE

---

“I must however state here, that a confessional statement which is made voluntarily and is direct, cogent, credible and positive, is enough to ground conviction even without corroboration of any sort. See Sule Iyanda Salawu vs The State (1971)NWLR 249; Grace Akinfe vs The State (1988)7 SCNJ (ptll)226; Yahaya vs The State (1986)12 SC 282 at 290.

---

NUMBER OF WITNESSES – WHETHER A PROSECUTION IS BOUND TO CALL A HOST OF WITNESSES IN PROOF OF ITS CASE

---

“With due deference to the learned appellant’s counsel, it is not necessary for the prosecution to in order to discharge the onus of proof imposed upon it by law, to call a host of witnesses or to adduce or tender every available pieces of evidence. It is sufficient if the evidence called is enough to discharge the onus placed on it by law. The true position of the law is that the prosecution is not bound to call every person linked to the commission of the crime by physical presence or otherwise to give evidence on what he perceived. Once persons who can testify to the actual commission of the crime and on the other ingredients have done so, that will suffice for the satisfaction of the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt as stipulated by Section 138 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 as amended, Cap 112 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. See Sadau v State (1968)124; The State vs Ogbubuoyo & Anor (2001)12 NWLR (pt.678)576; Obue v State (1976)2 SC 141; Shurumo v The State (2010)44 NSCQR 159. As a matter of fact, even a single witness who gives cogent eye witness account of the incident can be sufficient. See Odili vs State (1977)4 SCI”.

---

IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – DUTY OF A TRIAL COURT WHEN CONFRONTED WITH IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

---

“I must emphasis here, that identification evidence is not sine qua non for conviction. It is sufficient if credible evidence is adduced to show that the person charged with an offence is the same as the person who was seen committing the offence(s). When a trial court is confronted with identification evidence, all it is required to do is to be satisfied that the evidence of identification had established the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. See Ukpabi v State (2004)6-7 SC 27”.

---

IDENTIFICATION PARADE – WHETHER IDENTIFICATION PARADE IS NECESSARY IN ALL CRIMINAL CASES

---

“Identification parade is not necessary in all criminal cases. Identification is simply a means of establishing whether a person charged with an offence is actually the same person who committed the offence. Therefore once credible evidence abounds confirming that the person charged was the actual one who committed the offence, as in this instant case, then there will be no need to conduct, identification parade at all. See Orimoloye vs The State (1984)10 SC (Reprint)128; Ebri v The STate (2004)5 SC (pt. II)29”.

---

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE – PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES

---

“The age long principle of law, is that in criminal cases an accused person is constitutionally presumed innocent until the contrary is proved by the prosecution. The onus of proof in criminal cases does not shift as the burden throughout lies on the prosecution in criminal trial which must prove the guilt of the accused. See Bello v State (2007)10 NWLR (pt.l043)364; Igbole v State (2006)6 NWLR (pt.975)100”.

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS – ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THE INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS

---

“As a matter of practice, this court is always hesitant in interfering with or disturbing the concurrent findings of two lower courts except on special circumstances, for instance, where the findings are perverse or there is misconception or misapplication of law. None of these vices are apparent in this instant case. I therefore see no reason to disturb or interfere with the findings of the two courts below.

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 32, Vol.2 Laws of Lagos State of 1999

Evidence Act 2011 as amended

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT