CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: WHETHER AND WHEN SUFFICIENT TO GROUND CONVICTION

To effectively navigate through the aforestated topic, recourse shall be made to the recent case of ORI V. STATE (2022) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1824) 441 (SC), which involves an appeal against the judgement of the Court of Appeal delivered on 13th July, 2018, refusing the appellants application for dismissing the judgement of the High Court which was delivered on 6th July, 2017. The Supreme Court in an unanimous decision allowed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the two lower courts.

A brief of narration of what transpired in the case was that:

A police officer was on his way along Iwofin-Olorunda Road from his duty post in the vehicle of a couple, one Mr. Fatokun and his wife, when they suddenly sighted some armed men, including the appellant, who stopped the vehicle. The appellant approached the police officer at close range where he was seated in the vehicle and dispossessed him of his bag containing his police uniform. He also, together with his accomplice, took away a bag of rice, a mobile phone, the sum of ₦2,500.00 and other valuables. The incident was reported to the police at Lafenwa Police Station in Abeokuta.

Soon after the incident, the appellant was apprehended by a local community member. He was arrested wearing the police officer’s uniform with his name tag, number and epaulets. He also had with him a locally made gun. The appellant and the exhibits were taken to the police station. The police officer, upon receiving the information of the arrest, went to the police station where he positively recognised and identified the appellant as one of the armed robbers that robbed him on 16th August, 2007.

The appellant made confessional statements wherein he stated his involvement in the robbery and those of his collaborators. He vividly recalled how he and his gang of four members carried out the armed robbery operation. The statements were recorded by the investigating police officer at the State Criminal Investigation Department. He was directed to handle the case file which was transferred along with the appellant, the locally made gun, the police uniform and two expended cartridges.

At the trial, a police officer gave evidence to the effect that the appellant was in the company of some other persons, who were at large, when he and the couple were robbed. Under cross-examination, the police officer testified that one of the robbers pointed a pump action gun at them while the others carried locally made guns and cutlasses. The testimonies of the police officer and CIID were not controversial or challenged under cross-examination. The appellant’s confessional statements were admitted as exhibits 3 and 4 without the appellant’s objection to their admissibility.

The appellant testified in his defence and denied the charge. He stated that he was not among those who robbed the police officer and that he was arrested because his cows destroyed the community farms. The appellant raised the defence of alibi in his testimony under evidence-in-chief. However, under cross-examination, the appellant's testimony was in relation to the day of his arrest and not the events as to the day of the commission of the crime.

At the conclusion of trial, the trial court found the appellant-guilty, convicted him on the two-count charge and sentenced him to death by hanging.

The appellant, dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, appealed to the Court of Appeal. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed.

Still dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

A legal question was raised on whether and when a confessional statement is sufficient to ground a conviction. In its decision the Supreme Court held that;

“A court will be justified to impose a conviction of an accused person on the strength of a confessional statement where such is proven to be direct, positive and voluntary.”

A confession or confessional statement connotes an admission made at any time by a person charged with the commission of a crime tending to suggest stating an admission of committing the crime. The duty of the court is to decide the weight to be attached to it. What is admitted needs no further proof.

A confessional statement is legally sufficient to ground a conviction without corroborating evidence. It is considered the best and strongest evidence of guilt, provided it was made voluntarily, directly and unequivocally admits the offense, and passes specific judicial tests confirming its truth and credibility. When a confessional statement is admitted in evidence, unopposed, the presumption is that it was made voluntarily without any oppression. Where it is admitted in evidence without any objection, there can be no miscarriage of justice, in the circumstance, for the trial court not holding trial-within-trial for its admissibility and admission in evidence.

In essence, a confessional statement is an admission made by a person accused of committing a crime. It is a statement in which the person accepts or suggests involvement in the offence.

JUSTICE MUHAMMED LAWAL GARBA J.S.C stated that;

“The straight forward and the impeccable and credible evidence placed before the trial court, including the retracted but proven confessional statements by the appellant in exhibits 3 & 4and the evidence of one of the victims; i.e., PW1, who happened to be a police officer, satisfactorily established all the vital elements or ingredients or the two offences, eliminating any reasonable doubt that the appellant actually committed the offences he was convicted."

The Supreme Court, in its judgement, granted the appeal, and affirmed both the Judgement of the Court of Appeal and that of the FCT High Court. It further held that, a court will be justified to impose a conviction of an accused personally on the strength of a confessional statement where such is proven to be direct, positive and voluntary.

In the instant case, the prosecution-proved conspiracy and the mere retraction by the appellant of his statements at the trial had no inimical effect in the entire circumstances. There was no objection to the admissibility into evidence of the statements, exhibits 3 and 4, on ground of voluntariness thereof. Therefore, the trial court was right in admitting and placing reliance on them while the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision.

          

In conclusion, it was decided that the If an accused person objects to a confessional statement on the grounds that it was obtained involuntarily (e.g., by torture), the trial judge must pause the main trial to conduct a "trial within trial". During this mini-trial, the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was made voluntarily. If the prosecution fails, the statement is rejected.

An accused person may later deny making the confession (a retracted confession), and the court can still convict an accused solely on a retracted confessional statement, provided that: The court warns itself of the danger of convicting solely on the retracted confession. The court carefully reviews surrounding circumstances that give credibility to the contents of the confession.

About the Author: Nana Hauwa’u Abdulazeez is a Senior Advocate of Bayero University Kano (SABUK) and a member of the Research and Litigation Directorate, Solace Chambers, Bayero University, Kano. She can be reached via +2347039176661 or email - abdulazeeznanahauwau3@gmail.com.