UNDERSTANDING CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT THROUGH CASES AND LAWS (PART 1)

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT (CRIMINAL LITIGATION)

A need for distinction between an ORDINARY STATEMENT and a CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

ORDINARY STATEMENT (statement made to the police): Pursuant to the arrest of a suspect his narration in relation to the offence is described as an ordinary statement which is given during investigation. The court in GARBA & ANOR V STATE opined that it is the duty of the prosecution to tender statement made to the police during investigation. Also in OLAYINKA V STATE, the court opined that an ordinary statement is the foundation of the case.

                                                            WHILE

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: Is the voluntary admission of guilt made in the course of investigation or at any time after the close of investigation before commencement of any inquiry or trial. In AKPAN V STATE, the court held that once a confession of guilt is shown to have been made freely and voluntarily, be it judicial or extra-judicial, if it is direct , positive, and properly established it constitute proof of guilt and is enough to sustain conviction so long as court is satisfied as of its truth. SEE SECTION 28 EVIDENCE ACT LFN 2011

                                                            WHILE

PLEA OF GUILT: Is the admission of guilt by an accused person made in the open court after the commencement of trial. This is called JUDICIAL STATEMENT.

POSER: WHEN DO WE SAY THAT A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IN DEED?

ENABOSI V STATE: Where the confession is direct, positive and it absolutely point to the guilt of the accused

In OLALEKAN V STATE LER (2001) S.C 24/1999

The court opined that when the voluntariness of a confessional statement is being denied, a trial with trial will be held, but if the statement is voluntarily made then it is admissible.

The court discussed on how timeously a lawyer needs to raise objection on the admissibility of a confessional statement. The judge stated that when an accused person alleged that the confessional statement was made under duress or not made voluntarily by him, objection must then be raised to its admission when the stamen is sought to be tendered in evidence and not after it has been admitted in evidence.

However, in this instant case the learned counsel to the accused raised the objection to the admissibility of the confessional statement on appeal. His basis of objection rests on the fact that the confessional statement was hearsay.

The court opined that when the evidence is one of hearsay it is inadmissible so if it is a confessional statement it is inadmissible in law, then the question of its inadmissibility can be raised at any stage. This is so because a court is enjoined to decide a case on legal evidence only.

Let me give a brief fact of this part of the case: EXHIBIT A (CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT) was taken down by a IPO(PW6) in English Language. The accused person did not speak to him in that language but in Yoruba Language. The IPO does not understand Yoruba Language , so he needed someone to interpret to him. An interpreter was called so the accused spoke to the interpreter in Yoruba Language and the interpreter interpreted the statement of the accused to the IPO in English Language which the IPO writes down in that language as EXHIBIT A(CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT)

The court held that what the IPO wrote can only be hearsay evidence and therefore inadmissible unless the interpreter is so called to testify. The court relied on the decision in the case of R V OGBUEWU 12 WACA 483 where the west African court of appeal stated that:
                        ‘’where an interpreter has had to be used in the taking down of a statement, the statement is in admissible unless the person who interpreted it is called as a witness as well as the person who writes it down’

This is now in line with the provision of Section 17(3) of the ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2015.

However in LAGOS STATE the issue of TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL is no longer in existence by virtue of SECTION 9(3) ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE LAW 2011 WHICH PROVIDES:

‘ where any person who is arrested with or without warrant volunteers to make a Confessional Statement, the Police Officer shall ensure that the making of such statement is;

·         Recorded on video and the said recording and copies of it may be reproduced at the trial

·         Provided that in the absence of video facility, the said statement shall be in writing in the presence of a legal practitioner of his choice.

I believe that this provision was enacted to ameliorate the problem of voluntariness of confessional statement.

ACJA (ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT) 2015 also laid down procedure for obtaining confessional statement under SECTION 15(4):

‘ where a suspect who is arrested with or without warrant volunteers to make confessional statement, the police officer shall ensure that the making and taking of the statement shall;

·         Be in writing and

·         May be recorded electronically on a retrievable video compact disc or such other audio visual means.

POSER: Assuming Inspector Musa obtained a oral confessional statement from Sebastin a harden criminal will it be admissible in court.

By virtue of SECTION 17(5) of ACJA which provides that an oral confession of an arrested person shall be admissible in evidence.

In UCHE V THE QUEEN (1964) 1 ALL NLR 195 : A confessional statement is no less a confession if it is made orally. It carries no less weight than that made in writing and is regarded as strong as a written confession if the testimony of the witness to whom it was made is accepted by the court.

IGBINOVIA V STATE

(ADMISSIBLITY OF CONFESSIONAL STAEMNT MADE UNDER TRICK)

In the instant case, the appellant was charged with and convicted for murder. In order to elicit information from him, the police officer who disguised as a criminal suspect in the midst of suspects locked up in one of the police cell. The police officer lured the appellant by telling him his own exploits. The appellant in turn confessed that he took part in the killing of the deceased mentioning the date and the venue of the crime.

The supreme court rendered the confessional statement admissible and opined that the information cannot be inadmissible only by reason of the concealment of the status of the disguised policeman who was fed with such valuable information.