CORAM

---

Ita George Mbaba Justice of the Court of Appeal

Patricia Ajuma Mahmoud Justice of the Court of Appeal

Peter Oyinkenimiemi Affen Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

RICHARD J. KILAKI

APPELLANTS

 

---

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS

 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, JUDICIAL PRECEDENT

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant appeals his conviction by the High Court of Taraba State for culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221(a) of the Penal Code Law of Taraba State. The prosecution alleged that on July 31, 2017, at Mazang Village in Zing Local Government Area, the Appellant stabbed one Linus Ishaku in the stomach with a knife, leading to his death hours later at UMCN Clinic. The prosecution presented three witnesses and seven exhibits, including two alleged confessional statements (Exhibits RJK1 and RJK3). The Appellant denied making these statements, claiming he was illiterate and could only thumbprint documents. The trial court convicted him based primarily on these confessional statements.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was allowed

2. The judgment of the High Court was set aside

3. The Appellant was discharged and acquitted

4. The trial court erred in failing to determine whether the Appellant actually made the confessional statements before relying on them

5. There was insufficient corroborative evidence to support the confessional statements

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the trial court erred in relying on retracted confessional statements without testing their veracity and without corroborative evidence ?

2. Whether failure to consider available defenses constituted a breach of fair hearing ?

3. Whether the conviction should be quashed based on the evidence presented ?

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – CRIMINAL TRIALS AND PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

---

“A necessary corollary of the presumption of innocence is that in a criminal trial (such as the one that has generated the instant appeal, the burden is always on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt, and it is not relieved of this burden even where the accused person admitted to the commission of the offence in his statement to the police.” – Per Peter Oyinkenimiemi Affen, J.C.A

 

---

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – MODES OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

---

“The confessional statement of an accused person is one of the three modes of evidential proof in a criminal trial, the others being the direct evidence of witnesses and circumstantial evidence.” – Per Peter Oyinkenimiemi Affen, J.C.A

 

---

RETRACTED CONFESSIONS – DUTY OF COURT IN EVALUATION

---

The retraction or denial of a confessional statement by an accused person does not ipso facto render the statement inadmissible, and the Court is not precluded from convicting on the basis of a retracted confessional statement.” – Per Peter Oyinkenimiemi Affen, J.C.A

 

---

CORROBORATION OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – TEST OF VERACITY

---

“The law is now settled that even though a voluntary confessional statement does not necessarily require corroboration, particularly where it is tendered and admitted in evidence without objection, the Court will require corroboration when the defendant resiles from it or there is doubt about its voluntariness or the opportunity of making such a statement.” – Per Peter Oyinkenimiemi Affen, J.C.A

 

---

NON EST FACTUM – DISTINCTION FROM RETRACTION

---

“In criminal jurisprudence, a crucial distinction exists between denial of a confessional statement (otherwise known as a plea of ‘non est factum’) on the one hand, and retraction of or resiling from such a statement. It is misleading to use the terms interchangeably: a statement must first be shown to have been made before it can be said to have been retracted by its maker, whilst the plea of ‘non est factum’ or denial puts in issue the very fact of the making of the statement.” – Per Peter Oyinkenimiemi Affen, J.C.A

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

---

“The law does not impose any obligation on the accused person to prove his innocence, and this includes the burden of proving that he did not make the statement. The burden lies on the prosecution at all times to prove the guilt of the Defendant, and this includes the burden of proving that he made the statement credited to him.” – Per Peter Oyinkenimiemi Affen, J.C.A

 

---

MATERIAL WITNESSES – DUTY OF PROSECUTION

---

“A material or vital witness (which is dictated by the peculiar facts of each case) is one whose evidence may determine the case or a material point in controversy one way or the other.” – Per Peter Oyinkenimiemi Affen, J.C.A

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

2. Penal Code Law of Taraba State

3. Evidence Act, 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT