Attitude of the Judiciary Towards Admissibility of Confessional Statement
CHAPTER ONE
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The general objective of the study is to assess the Attitude Of The Judiciary Towards Admissibility Of Confessional Statement in Nigeria. The Specific objectives of the study are :
- to critically examine circumstances in which confessional statement are admissible
- to determine the effect of retracted confessional statement in criminal trials in Nigeria
- to critically examine circumstances in which confessional statements may be vitiated and application in decided cases
CHAPTER TWO
ADMISSION AND CONFESSION
NATURE AND DEFINITION OF CONFESSION
At common law, a confession was the name given to an adverse admission by the accused relevant to the issue of guilt in a criminal case. In Nigeria, as the case in point, confessions are covered by section 27 to 32 of the Evidence Act 1990. The word “confession” is derived from the Latin word ‘confess us’ which mean to speak or confess completely? [1].
Under the Evidence Act, confession is defined thus:
“A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charge with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.
A confession, like any other admission, may be made orally, in writing, by conduct or in any way from which a proper inference may be drawn adverse to the maker. Usually confessions are made to police officer or other investigators as a result of interrogation, but may equally be made to the victim of an offence, a friend or relative or any other person.
The law regarding confessions is now the same in all cases, and it no longer matters whether the person to whom the confession is made is a person in authority.
Importantly, although in common law parlance, the word ‘confession’ connotes a full admission of guilt, it has no such meaning in law, either at common law or under the statutory definition. As long as any part of a statement is adverse to the maker, in that it has some relevance to the issue of guilt, it will be deemed a confession for the purpose of the law of evidence.
More still, going by the definition given by the Evidence Act, it is clear that admission of such guilt can be made “at anytime’ is so far it was made after the commission of an offence. Such a confessional statement can even be made before the accused is charged. The case of Sunday Onungwa .V. The state is very illustrative in this respect. In that case, the appellant was convicted of murder. It appeared from evidence which the trial judge accepted that, during the investigations (by the police) preliminary to him being charged with the offence, the appellant admitted to ownership of a blood stained matchet recovered near the scene of the murder admitting at the same time that he had killed the deceased “as a result of the work of the devil”. The admissions was made in the presence of other members of his family amongst them was his elder brother who also testified confirming the admission made by the appellant. It was argued at the lower court that these admissions being “extra judicial” should have been rejected and that when the admissions were made it was not then decided the appellant should be charged with any offence and that no caution was administered to the appellant before they were made. Overruling these submissions, the Supreme Court held: ‘that an admission made at anytime by a person charged with crime suggesting the influence that he committed the offence is a relevant fact against the maker and if it is made voluntarily it is admissible in evidence.
CHAPTER THREE
RULES GOVERNING CONFESSION
Factors For The Admissibility Of Confessional Statements
To be admissible, confessional statements must be freely and voluntarily made. Section 27(2)[1] provides:
“Confession if voluntary are deemed to be relevant facts as against the person(s) who made them only”.
Flowing from this provision, only voluntary confession is relevant and therefore admissible. The “voluntary” is no where defined in the Evidence Act. But any confession obtained in any of the manners listed in section 28 of the Evidence Act is involuntary and therefore inadmissible. The section provides: “A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid evil of temporal nature”.
Thus, section 28 of the Evidence Act provides a guide to the admissibility of a confessional statement. Voluntariness which section 27 of the Evidence Act stipulates means that for any confessional statement to be relevant and admissible, it must be made by the accused person out of his own freewill and choice.
“A confession, like any other admission may be made orally, in writing, by conduct or in any way from which proper inference may be drawn adverse to the maker. Usually, confession are made to police officers or other investigators as a result of interrogation, but may equally be made to the victim of an offence, a friend or relative or any other person, The law regarding confessions is now the same in all cases, and no longer matters whether the person to whom the confession is made is a person in authority[2].
“If an inducement is held out by someone not in authority in the presence of someone in authority the ensuing confession will be inadmissible unless the person in authority dissociates himself from the inducement[3].
“Other circumstances justifying the rejection of a confession include subjection of the accused to cross-examination directed at breaking down and destroying his answers and continued interrogation of an accused who is willing to answer questions, or to do so before seeing a solicitor[4]. It must be noted that is not easy threat or promise which will exchole a confession, According to section 28 of the Evidence Act, for a confession to be rendered inadmissible the promise or threat must have proceeded from a person in authority.
CHAPTER FOUR
OTHER RULES AFFECTING CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
RETRACTION Of CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
As we have seen, confessional statement if freely and voluntarily made is admissible against the maker.
However, there are situations where an accused person who had previously made free and voluntary statement resiles from it during trial.
According to Gerald Nwagbogu (1994)[1]
“Where an accused in his evidence retracts his previous confessional statement, thus, rendering .his earlier confession inconsistent and in conflict with his testimony, the confession, of shown by the prosecution to be voluntarily made, is admissible irrespective of its belated retraction”
It is a settled principle of law that the fact that an accused person denies making a confession does not render it inadmissible.
The case of Rex .v. Itule[2] is instructive in this respect. In that case, soon after the appellant was arrested for murder, he made a statement to the police in which he admitted killing the deceased, but described circumstances, which, if true, would amount to legal provocation. The next day he denied having made the statement and made a new one in which he repudiated all responsibility for the deceased’s death. His evidence at the trial was substantially in uniformity with his second statement.
Brett Ag. C.J.F said:
“A confession does not become inadmissible merely because the accused person denied having made it and in this respect a confession contained in a statement made to the police by a person under arrest is not be treated differently from any other confession. The fact that the appellant took the earlier opportunity to deny having made the statement may lend weight to its denial but it is not itself a reason for ignoring the statement”.
It is desirable to have outside the retracted confessional statement some evidence, which would make it probable that the confession was true.
The effect of a denial of a confessional statement was clearly made by the Supreme Court in Ikpasa .v. State[3]where Udoma J.s.C said inter alia:
“My Lords, it is well established practice in this country, that where on the production of a confession it is challenged on the ground that an accused did not make it at all, … whatever objection may be made by the counsel in such circumstance does not affect the admissibility of the statement and therefore it should be admitted in evidence as the issue of voluntariness or otherwise of the statement does not arise for consideration and decision”
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Findings from the research revealed that an accused person is of great evidential value in the dispensation of justice. Therefore, the court should not treat it lightly.
Before the confessional statement of an accused person is admitted in evidence , certain factors must be taken into consideration. First, the judge must satisfy himself that the accused person is not of tender years or immature and that he can make a true confession.
Secondly, the accused state of mind at the time of making the confessional statement must be taken into consideration. The judge must ensure that the accused person at the time making the confessional statement is made under delusion or insanity, the confessional statement made under such circumstances should be treated as completely unreliable. Such confessional statement should be seen as made when the accused person was not in control of his mental statement.
Thirdly, the judge must be satisfied that at the time of making the confessional statement, the accused person was not in any way suffering from extreme debility, distress or infirmity of the mind. The judge must also be satisfied that the accused was not placed at a real disadvantage through Mis-apprehension of an important fact.
Fourthly, the accused person if under a drunken state should not be made to make any confessional statement. If the accused person under a drunken state made the confessional statement, the judge must treat such confessional statement inadmissible. It must be taken into cognizance that intoxication (drunkenness) according to the provisions of the criminal code could lead to insanity even though of temporal nature. It would therefore be unjust and contrary to the provision of the criminal code1 to apply on the confessional statement under a drunken state.
CONCLUSIONS
The judge must ensure that at the time an accused person made the confessional statement no deception or trick was practiced on him. Any deception or trick practiced on the accused might lead him to implicate himself.
Section 28 of the Evidence Act, 1990, speaks of inducement, threat or promise must proceed from a person in authority and must have reference to the charge against the accused person. To render any confessional statement inadmissible, it would be sufficient if there is any inducement threat or promise offered to eth accused person.
For example, if eth accused is told “if you confess I will get you a wife” or if you confess I will make you rich” or if you confess I will buy you a car or better accommodation”. Such inducements or promise should be sufficient to render a confession inadmissible.
Under the common law, mere adjuration does not affect the admissibility of confession, under our law does mere adjuration whether on moral o religious grounds affect admissibility of the Evidence Act 1990 speaks of any inducement, threat or promise heed out to the accused person any confessional statement thereby obtained would be inadmissible under section 28.
It is a well – established principle of law that if a confession is freely and voluntarily made, it is admissible. Where an accused person freely and voluntarily make a confessional statement and subsequently retracts, he cannot be made to escape punishment by such retraction, once a confessional statement is made it binds the maker.
A distinction must be drawn between a confession that is objected on the ground that it was not freely and voluntarily made and a confession that is retracted. The two are not one and the same thing.
Where the voluntariness of a confession is in issue, a trial within trial is conducted in order to determine how the confession was received. In conducting the trial within the judge will be able to know whether the making and receiving of such confession was fair to the accused. If the finds that the circumstance under which the accused person made the confession was fair on him, he will accept it. But if he discovers that the circumstance was unfair he will reject the confession. But where a confession is retracted a trial within trial is unnecessary, unwarranted and inappropriate[1]. Where the circumstance in which the confessional statement of the accused person was an unfair one, the accused person has the right to object to its voluntaries when it is tendered in evidence. Ever where the circumstances of taking the confession is highly prejudicial to the accused person, the statement but should not deny making the statement but raise objection to its voluntaries.
There may be situations in which the only evidence is the confessional statement of the accused person which is subsequently retracted. The court can convict the accused on the retracted confession if the court is satisfied that the act to which the accused confessed to actually happened and that the accused made the confession out his own free will and choice and that no force, coercion, oppression or inducement was offered to him. One important use why confession must ne free and voluntary is that an accused can be convicted solely on it. Situations may also be arise whereby an accused person makes a confessional statement and on standing trail, a different confessional statement is tendered before the court. It could be that the accused person was forced to sign the reported confessional statements. Under these situations, the accused in all fairness must and should dissociate himself from such statements because such confessional statements cannot be said to be made by him, here, the court may order the police officer in charge of the investigation to go an take a confessional statement from the accused in eth right and proper manner.
REFERENCES
- “A Harvest of Violations” Published by Civil Liberties Organisation (1993).
- Aguda T.A., (1999) The Law of Evidence: Spectrum Law publisher, 4th edition.
- Aguda. T.A., (1998); Law and Practice Relating To Evidence in Nigeria, ” ‘MIJ Professional publishers Ltd. 2nd edition .
- Arermu. O., “The Voluntariness of Confession in Nigeria Law”, Nigerian Law Journal; Vol. II Fourth Dimension publishing Company; (1977 -1980)
- Chukwuemeka O “The nature of confessional statement” Law Mirror, Vol. 1 No 40 Monday October 25-nov. 1, 1992
- Cross, R.; (1979); Evidence; Butterworths London 5th edition.
- Elliot, D.W.; Phipson and Elliot, (1980) Manual of the law of Evidence, Sweet & Maxwell London, 11th edition.
- Kamisar Y; et ai, (1980); Basic Criminal procedure. St. Paul Minn Co., 5th edition.
- Lawyers Digest Journal of Bendel state University Law students association (1989).
