– When is a confessional statement said to be involuntary
It is trite that no statement of an accused person is admissible against him unless it is shown by the prosecution to have been made voluntarily.[1] The issue of involuntariness arises where an accused person alleges that he was subjected to torture, duress, threat or inducement in the making of a confessional statement. In other words, though, he made the statement, it was not a product of his freewill since he was forced to make it.[2]
– Whether the absence of video recording of the making of a confessional statement makes it inadmissible; when would it be necessary to produce the video recording in evidence
Section 9 (3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law stipulates as follows:
Where any person who is arrested with or without a warrant volunteers to make a Confessional Statement, the Police Officer shall ensure that the making and taking of such statement is recorded on video and the said recording and copies of it may be produced 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.
Reasons for recording of the making of a confessional statement under Section 9 (3)
- To curtail/minimize the incongruous situation whereby the affluent in the society, unduly influence the law enforcement agents, the police, to give credence to their frivolous and phantom allegations by intimidating innocent suspects to making confessional statements.
- To provide conducive and assuring atmosphere for persons standing trial under our criminal Justice system, to obviate incidence of abuse of human rights.[3]
- To assure the accused of fair trial and ensure that confessional statements are made voluntarily and that the suspect is not intimidated
The non-compliance of Section 9 (3) of the ACJA will not by itself render inadmissible a confessional statement that was not recorded in accordance with its tenets. It can only form part of the snippets on the basis of which a Court can infer, alongside other established evidence, that a confessional statement was obtained by oppression or circumstances which may have rendered unreliable any confession. The non- video recording of the making of a confessional statement or non-making of the statement in the presence of a legal practitioner of the choice of an accused person cannot make such a statement inadmissible.[4]
– The import of an admitted confessional statement
It is trite law that a confessional statement made by an accused person, which is properly admitted in evidence is, in law, the best pointer to the truth of the role played by such accused person in the commission of the offence.[5]
– Retraction of Confessional Statements
The retraction of a Confessional statement does not render confession inadmissible. The fact that an accused person denies making a confessional statement to the police, does not render such extra judicial statement inadmissible merely because the accused person denies having made it. What the Court is expected to do to determine the weight to be attached to a retracted confessional statement to test its truthfulness and veracity by examining the said statement in the light of other credible available evidence.[6]
The Court would consider whether:
a. There is anything outside that Confessional statement to show that it is true; b. It is corroborated;
c. The facts stated in it are true as far as it can be tested;
d. The accused person had the opportunity of committing the offence;
e. The accused person’s confession is possible;
f. The confession is consistent with the other facts ascertained and proved at the trial.
– Conviction upon a retracted confessional statement
While a court is competent to convict a Defendant upon his confessional statement alone, where the accused retracts his confessional statement in court, the court has a duty not to rely upon the confessional statement, unless there are other pieces of evidence that corroborates the confession.[7] The Evidence in collaboration must be an independent testimony, direct or circumstantial which confirms in some material particular not only that an offence has been committed but that the accused person has committed it. Corroboration need not consist of direct evidence that the accused person committed the offence nor need it amount to a confirmation of the whole account given by the witness, provided that it corroborates the evidence in some respect material to the charge. [8]
[1]Gbadamosi and another v State (1992) LPELR-SC.290/1991; Ibrahim v R (1914) AC, 559, 609; Ikpasa v State [1981] 9 SC 7, 29; Auta v State [1975] 1 All NLR 163, 169.
[2]Ehot v State [1993] 4 NWLR (Pt 290) 644; Nwosu v State [1986] 4 NWLR (PT 35) 326; Odeh v FRN [2008] 12 NWLR (Pt 1103) 1; Ofordike v State (2019) LPELR-46411(S) 39-45 paras B-C.
[3]Awelle v People of Lagos State (2016) LPELR (41395) 1 at 31.
[4]Ike v State of Lagos (2019) LPELR-47712(CA) 8-25 paras C-D; Kadiri v State (2019) LPELR 47714 (CA).
[5]Oseni v State (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt 1293) 351 FRN v Iweka and others 3NWLR (Pt 1341) 285.
[6] Osetola v State (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt 1329) 251 at 278: Dawa v State (1980) 8-11 SC 236; Alao v State (2019) LPELR-47856 (SC) 23-24 paras E-F.
[7]Williams Owocho v The State (2012) LPELR – 15427 (CA) Mumuni v The State (1975) 6 SC 79 at 94.
[8]Nwambe v State (1995) 3 NWLR Pt 384 PAGE 385; Dagaya v State (2006) 7 NWLR Pt 980, 647; Ogunayo v State (2007) 8 NWLR Pt 1035 PAGE 157; The State v Usman Isah (2012) LPELR-15519 SC 10-13 paras E-D.