Utility of Confessional Statement in Criminal Trials Case Study of Ogun State
CHAPTER ONE
Objective Of Study
Although there are many methods of research that can be employed to gather facts and information, the dissertation is based doctrinal method of research. The doctrinal method will involve the use of primary documents and secondary documents. The primary documents include the Charter, treaties and decisions of the International Court of Justice and International Military Tribunal whereas secondary documents involve the use of books, articles and newspapers that have been published. Thus, this method will be used to obtain the opinions of experts in international law. This, it is believed, will put the discordant concept in a proper context.
CHAPTER TWO
ANALYSIS OF CONFESIONAL STATEMENT
INTRODUCTION
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 28 to 34 of the Evidence Act 2011.
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[1] 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.
Also, in Gbadamosi .V. State[2], confessions was defined thus:
“Legally, the word ‘confession’ means an admission of an offence by an accused person it means an acknowledgement of crime by an accused person. It is an admission made at anytime by a person charged with crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime”.
For a confessional statement to be admitted in evidence, it must be freely and voluntarily made. The accused person must make it out of his own freewill and choice. This Chapter will discuss the above points elaborately
NATURE AND SCOPE OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS
Confessions are either judicial or extra judicial. Judicial confessions are confessions made in the court in the course of the proceeding in question. Section 28 of the Act is obviously wide enough in its wording to cover both, but judicial confessions are also expressly dealt with in section 218 and sections 314 of the criminal procedure Act and section 32 of the Evidence Act, also section 157(1), 161(2) and 187(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. If during his trial in court an accused person confesses to the offence charged, and such a confession is in the nature of a plea of guilty section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act and section 274 of Administration of Criminal Justice Act prescribes the consequences of such a plea[3]”, Section 161(2) and 187(1) of these Criminal Procedure Code deals respectively With such consequences in trials in the magistrate courts and in the High Courts of the Northern State. It should be noted that by pleading guilty, an accused person does not admit the truth of the facts contained in the dispositions. He merely admits that he is guilty of the offence as charged and nothing else.
CHAPTER THREE
THE TESTS OF ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS UNDER THE LAW
INTRODUCTION
The Evidence Act 2011 abolished the test of voluntariness and it is no longer the yardstick for determining the admissibility of confessions. By virtue of the provisions of section 29 of the Evidence Act, any confession obtained by oppression of the defendant, or made in consequence of anything said or done to the defendant which was likely to render the confession unreliable, is inadmissible. There is still a paucity of judicial precedent on the interpretation of the new exclusionary principle of evidence contained in section 29 of the Evidence Act. However, since the provisions of section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 are similar to section 29(2) of the Evidence Act, judicial decisions of English courts on the subject are of persuasive authority.
There is a new barometer for the admissibility of confessions and the key operative words are oppression and reliability. Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act 2011 states that, “If, in any proceeding where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by a defendant, it is represented to the court that the confession was or may have been obtained, (a) by oppression of the person who made it; or (b) in consequence of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in such consequence; the court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained in a manner contrary to the provisions of this section.” Furthermore, section 29(3) of the Evidence Act states that, the court may of its own motion require the prosecution to prove that the confession was not obtained in violation of the provisions of the section. This new provision now permits the court to suo motu raise the issue of oppression or unreliability of a confession and order a trial within trial.
Under section 27 of the repealed Evidence Act only voluntary confessions were relevant and admissible. However, the Act did not define the meaning of the term “voluntary” and there was divergence of opinion on the interpretation of the term. The conditions which made a confession not to be voluntary were defined by the provisions of section 28 of the repealed Evidence Act but the conditions which will make a confession to be regarded as unreliable are not limited by section 29 of the Evidence Act 2011. Therefore, voluntariness is a narrower concept than reliability and previous judicial decisions on the voluntariness of confessions may still be relevant in the application of section 29(2) of the Evidence Act.
The defendant only has to raise the issue or introduce evidence of oppression or unreliability. The prosecution on the other hand must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained by oppression of the defendant or made in consequence of anything likely to render the confession unreliable. In Paris,[1] Lord Taylor CJ said on the interpretation of section 76(2) of PACE, “Three points on that section require emphasis. First, the issue having been raised by the defence, the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that neither (2)(a) nor (2)(b) applied was on the Crown. Secondly, what matters is how the confession was obtained, not whether, or not it may have been true. Thirdly, unless the prosecution discharged the burden of proof, the judge was bound as a matter of law to exclude the confession. His decision was not discretionary.”
CHAPTER FOUR
RETRACTION OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The Evidence Act 2011 defines Confessional statement as “the admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he has committed that crime”. Also in the case of Jimoh v. State[1] confessional statement was defined as “a criminal or suspects written or oral acknowledgement of guilt, often including details about the crime. Confessional statement is simply the admission of guilt. The position of the law is that a confessional statement of the accused alone which is free and voluntary, it is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused person. See the case of Okoh v. The State.[2] However, for such confessional statement to be able to secure the conviction of the accused, it must be direct, unequivocal, positive and irresistibly point to the guilt of the accused person. This begs the question “what weight is attached to a retracted confessional statement?” Retraction is basically understood as when a person makes a confessional statement and decides to ‘take it back’ or “the denial of authorship of a confessional statement”. This chapter centres on retracted statements and its legal effect.
RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT.
The retraction of confessional statement is a denial of an earlier statement made. By such denial, an accused dissociates himself completely from previous statement. Such denials are mostly pronounced in murder case etc. and It should be brought to mind that, in line with the decision in Egboghonome V. The State[3], for a confessional statement to be admissible, it needs to be direct, positive and unequivocal, in fact, not only does this make it admissible, but, as we have seen, a court can further go to make a conviction based solely on this. This was the opinion of Olagunwumiju JCA in the case of Ogun v. The State.[4] The position of the law as regards admissibility of evidence is that all evidence given relating the facts in issue or facts which are relevant to the facts in issue are admissible in court. It is trite law that when an accused person retracts a confessional statement , such confessional statement will be admitted by the court, only the in relying on its truthfulness, there would be need for corroboration. See the case of Oguneje v. State where it was held the a retraction does not go to the admissibility of the confessional statement and the trial court is entitled to admit the confession in evidence as an evidence the prosecution claims to have obtained from the accused and thereafter decide or find out as a matter of fact whether or not the accused person in fact made the statement at the end of the trial.
CHAPTER FIVE
GENERAL CONCLUSION AND RECCOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSION
Our courts have the sacred duty of ensuring that the confessional statement of the accused person is clearly and unequivocally made. Many accused person while under police detention or custody are subjected to all form of in human and degrading treatment. Most accused persons confess under various threats, duress and mis-representation. The accused persons are at time told by some police officers to admit committing an alleged offence and that by so doing they will be pardoned or set free. The accused person in such circumstances is helpless and has no other option than to admit the commission of the alleged offence.
Our police officers should have regard to the provisions of section 35 (2)[1] that section provides:
“Any person who is arrested or detained shall have the right to remain silent or avoid answering question until after consultation with a legal practitioner or any other person of his choice”.
RECCOMMENDATIONS
The recommendation of the writer is as follows
ABOLITION OF TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL
It is submitted that the Nigerian criminal justice system has come of age and can do away with the age long practice of conducting trial within trial whenever the admissibility of a confessional statement is objected to on the ground of voluntariness based on the reasons adumbrated below:
LENGTH OF TRIAL
A trial within trial wastes the time of the court as it is a complete trial on its own and the main case can suffer several adjournments in order to procure witnesses[1] while the accused person will be languishing in prison,[2] except if he has been granted bail.
REFERENCES
- Atsegbua L. Oil and Gas Law in Nigeria theory and Practice, 2nd Edition.
- Atsegbua L. Environmental Law in Nigeria. Theory and Practice.
- Nkengika & Salisu Matori: Oil Exploration in Northern Nigeria. Problems and Prospects.
- Okorodudu-Fubara, M.T. Law of Environmental Protection.
- Inegbedion N.A. & Odion J.O. Constitutional Law in Nigeria.
- Adaramola, F. Basic Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition.
