Confirmation before a superior police officer of a statement made by the accused that he was the one who committed the crime may be dispensed with and the confessional statement may be admitted if there is no suspicion of such statement not being voluntary. See MUSA KASA v. THE STATE (1994) 6 SCNJ.
– Galadima, JSC. Kingsley v. State (2016)
SHARE ON
The rule with respect to conducting a trial within a trial operates only in cases of questioning the voluntariness or otherwise of confessions. It does not operate where an accused person denies making the statement or retracts.
– Galadima, JSC. Kingsley v. State (2016)
When a trial Court is confronted with a statement made by an accused person which is confessional, there are two situations that may arise. The accused person may object to the admissibility of the statement on the ground that it was not voluntarily made; that it was procured by means of torture, inducement or fear. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the court to conduct what is commonly referred to as a “trial within trial” to determine if indeed the statement was voluntarily made, Where the accused person denied making the statement at all, a trial within trial is unnecessary. The Court would be at liberty to admit the statement in evidence and at the conclusion of the case determine the probative value to attach to it.
– Galadima, JSC. Kingsley v. State (2016)
Be it noted that a confessional statement becomes proof of an act when it is true, positive and direct. – Onu JSC. Peter v. State (1997)
The law is also trite that an accused person can be convicted based on his confession alone. In such situation, there is however the need to test the truth of the confession in the light of other credible evidence before the Court. Such test as enunciated in the case of R. V. Skyes (1913) 8 CAR page 233 may include the following:- Whether there is anything outside the confession to show that it is true. Whether it is corroborated. Whether the statement made in it are in fact true as far as they can be tested. Whether the accused had the opportunity of committing the crime. Whether the confession is possible. Whether it is consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and which have been proved. See also Onyenye v The State (supra), Alarape v The State (2001) 5 NWLR (pt 705) 79, Dawa & Anor v The State (1980) SC 236 page 267.
— J.I. Okoro, JSC. Chibuike Ofordike V. The State (SC.695/2016, 2019)
My Lords, the confessional statement of the Appellant was retracted by him in the course of the trial and the position of the law as reiterated by this Court in several cases is that the statement must meet the probability test set out in R. v. Sykes (1913) 18 CR All Pg. 233: a) Whether there is anything outside it to show the statement is true, b) Whether it is corroborated, c) Whether the statement made in it of fact so far as they can be tested are true, d) Whether the accused had the opportunity of committing the offence, e) Whether it is consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and have been proved.
– Ogunwumiju JSC. Junaidu v. State (2021)
Where it is alleged that a confessional statement was obtained under duress or as a result of threat or inducement, the Courts have developed the practice of conducting a trial within trial 18 (TWT) or mini trial to ascertain the voluntariness of the statement. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that it was freely and voluntarily made … On the other hand, where the accused outrightly disowns the confession and asserts that he did not make the statement at all, it would be admitted in evidence and considered alongside other evidence led at the trial to determine its probative value.
– Kekere-Ekun JSC. Berende v. FRN (2021)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry