RELEVANCY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

A confession is relevant and admissible in evidence, so long as it is voluntarily made and not as a result of threat or inducement. A confessional statement is admissible once it is direct and positive relating to the acts of the accused, with knowledge or intention, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the offence.

Section 29 of the Evidence Act 2011 provides that a confession is relevant and admissible in evidence, so long as it is voluntarily made and not as a result of threat or inducement. Where a court is satisfied that a confession was freely and voluntarily made and that it is direct, positive and unequivocal as to the accused person’s participation in the crime alleged, it may rely solely on the confession to ground a conviction.

A confession is a statement written or orally made voluntarily by an accused person charged with the commission of a crime to another person where he admits or acknowledges his guilt in respect of the offence charged and stating the circumstances of his act, as in the instant case, is a confession. Thus,  Section 28 of the Evidence Act, 2011 defines a confession as ‘‘an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime.” The five learned Supreme Court justices extensively revisited the relevancy and admissibility of confessional statement in the case of ADAMU V. STATE (2019) 8 NWLR (PT. 1675) 478.

The simple summary of the complex fact leading to institution of the criminal proceeding against the Appellant ( Defendant at the trial court) and the Appellant’s further appeal to the Supreme Court against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the court of appeal is that:

The appellant is alleged to have  stabbed one Shuaibu Ahmed on the ribs with a knife on 30th September 2011 at about 7pm at Namnai village in Gassol Local Government Area within Jalingo Judicial Division. Thus, the appellant was arraigned at the High Court of Taraba State sitting at Jalingo for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221 of the Penal Code. Though, the Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. According to the Prosecution the stabbing was said to have resulted in the death of the said Shuaibu Ahmed. The Appellant raised the defense of alibi at the earliest opportunity and gave full particulars but the alibi was not investigated by the prosecution. At the trial, the prosecution called only one witness: Sgt Danjuma Manga, one of the Investigating Police Officers. He testified that he received the report of the stabbing from one Benjamin James after which he visited the scene of the offence and recovered the knife used in stabbing the deceased. He testified further that he conveyed the deceased to the hospital where he eventually died. He said the appellant was later arrested about fourteen days after the incident. However the prosecution did not call the said Benjamin James who was an eye-witness to testify at the trial. The prosecution did not tender the knife recovered in evidence and did not tender the medical report of the cause of death in evidence. The English version of the extra-judicial statement of the appellant which Sgt. Danjuma Manga said he recorded was tendered and admitted in evidence as a confessional statement. On the face of the statement, it was stated that it was taken in English language and read over and explained to the appellant in Hausa language. However the transcribed version in Hausa language was not produced/tendered before the court. Also the interpreter of the statement was not called to testify to that effect during the trial. The appellant testified on his own behalf and called no other witness.

 The trial Court and the Court of Appeal relied on the confessional statement tendered by the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the Appellant as charged and dismissed his appeal respectively. Still dissatisfied the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court iterated that: the Appellant being an illiterate in English Language, for his confessional statement to have been properly made before the court for consideration, both the English and Hausa versions ought to have been tendered. In order to ensure the correctness and accuracy of a statement made by an accused person and to protect his right to fair hearing guaranteed by Section36(6) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, where he volunteers a statement in a language other than English Language, which is the language of the court, the statement in the original language in which it was recorded as well as its translation into English language must be tendered in court. It enables the court to be satisfied that it is his true statement. There’s a substantial weight accorded to a confessional statement. 

The Supreme Court further iterated that: there’s no indication that the statement of the Appellant was recorded in any other language after carefully examining the record of proceedings. The appellant’s conviction was based on the alleged confessional statement. It is evident therefore that the exhibit GA relied upon by the learned trial Judge at pages 54 - 55 and 57 of the record did not form part of the record before him. There was no exhibit marked GA. It was also not shown to have formed part of the record before the court below.  Absence of a confessional statement on which the alleged was charged is a vital issue to the case at hand.

The Supreme Court also stated that : It is a settled law that where a court relies on a confessional statement in convicting an accused, it ought to subject the statement to some tests to satisfy itself that the alleged confession is true. This test requires the consideration of some other evidence outside the confession, no matter how slight. The court is enjoined to consider the following:

a) Whether there is, anything outside the confession which shows that it may be true;

b) Whether the confessional statement is corroborated;

c) Whether the relevant statements of fact made in it are most likely true as far as they can be tested;

d) Whether the accused had the opportunity of committing the offence;

e) Whether the confession is possible; and

f) Whether the alleged confession is consistent with other facts that have been ascertained and established.

Thus, where a court relies on a confessional statement of an accused person in convicting the person for a crime with a heinous punishment, such court must put the confessional statement through some tests, to satisfy that the alleged confessional statement is true. 

The Supreme Court explained that: The learned trial Judge stated at page 51 of the record that he had subjected the appellant’s confessional statement to the relevant test. Although he listed the factors to be taken into consideration before relying on a confessional statement, he did not demonstrate in the judgment that he had in fact done so. Indeed, immediately after citing relevant authorities, he stated thus: “Having admitted exhibit “GA” and scrutinized same as stated above, I find that it has passed the test enunciated above.” The court below affirmed the conviction of the appellant based on the contents of the alleged confessional statement without considering whether there was any other evidence outside the statement that made it probable or whether it was consistent with other facts ascertained and proved. 

The trial court did not subject the confessional statement to the veracity test as to the truth of the confessional statement and this not having been done the conviction based on that statement is not sustainable.

The Supreme Court, in this case, emphasized the importance of ensuring that a confessional statement is voluntarily made, properly recorded, and fully understood by the accused before it can be relied upon for conviction. The accused person in question was an illiterate who neither spoke nor understood English (the language in which the statement was recorded). Although it was claimed that the statement was interpreted to him in Hausa, there was no Hausa version of the statement presented in court, and the interpreter was never called to testify. This raised a serious doubt about whether the accused truly understood what was recorded or had even made the confession at all.

Furthermore, there were contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence. The police officer who testified claimed he recorded the statement on a particular date, but the statement itself reflected a different date and another officer’s name as the one who recorded it. These inconsistencies cast further doubt on the reliability and authenticity of the statement. Despite all these flaws, the lower courts had convicted the accused based solely on that confessional statement without corroborating evidence.

The Supreme Court held that such a statement, given the procedural irregularities, could not be treated as voluntarily made or reliable. It underscored that in situations where the accused is vulnerable, like being illiterate or not understanding the language used, the court must be especially cautious. The failure to call the interpreter, the absence of a translated version, and the conflicting details about who recorded the statement and when it was recorded all made the confession unreliable and inadmissible as the sole basis for conviction.

In further resolving the appeal against the Appellant and dismissing the concurrent decisions of the trial and the appellate court, the Supreme Court made reference to Section 28 & 29 of  the Evidence Act 2011. The Court noted that the facts borne out of the record situated with what the law has provided is that the confessional statement of the accused such as the case in hand taken with the aid of an interpreter in a language different from English, two statements must be tendered, one in the language of the appellant and the other, the English translation in order that the requirement of the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt can be taken to have been discharged. That not having been done, is fatal to the case of the respondent as the one version of English is rendered inadmissible. 

 

By way of conclusion, a confession is relevant and admissible in evidence so long as it is voluntarily made without any form of duress or undue influence. A confessional statement has to be positive and direct relating to the acts of the accused with the knowledge that it can be inferred that the accused committed the offence. This, for a confessional statement to be relied upon as the basis for the charge it has to undergo rigorous tests to assert it’s validity. 

About the Author: 

Aisha Abdulhamid is a member of Research and Litigation Directorate, Solace Chambers, Bayero University, Kano. She can be reached via +2349038146810.