ABSTRACT

A confession is a species of admission. When in the course of an investigation into a criminal oence, a suspect has made a statement to the police tending to show that he has committed that oence, the statement is known as a confession. Confession is governed by rules which assist the court in the administration of justice. This study takes a look at what confession is, its nature and scope. It also considers factors which can make a confessional statement inadmissible and irrelevant. It examines the voluntariness and retraction of a confessional statement as well as confessions of other oences in addition to those charged. A normative or doctrinal research was adopted to achieve this objectives. The study revealed that Where inducement, threat or promise issued has cased to exist, any subsequent confessional statement obtained would be admissible and A confession does not become inadmissible merely because the accused denies having made it but the court in acting on such retracted confessional statement must satisfy itself that the accused in fact made the statement out of his own free will and choice.

 

CHAPTER ONE

1.1 BACKGROUND TO STUDY

An adverse admission relevant to the issues of guilt in a criminal case is known at Common Law as confession, and the same terminology is employed by the Evidence Act 1990. As indicated above, confessions represent the most important and most frequently encountered exception to the rule against hearsay in criminal cases, fundamental changes in the law pertaining to confessions were introduced by the Evidence Act 1990, but in order to understand the principles of admissibility of confessions, it is necessary to understand the principles of admissibility developed at common law to govern the admissibility of confessions. Apparently, we will summarize the most important aspects of the common law rules, we will then proceed to examine the new statutory definition and rules of admissibility of confessions.

While the common law recognized that a confession might be both reliable and cogent as evidence of guilt, and indeed saw no objection to a conviction in cases where a confession was the only evidence against the accused, the law recognized that a confession could be regarded as reliable only when given freely and voluntarily. If coerced on forced, reliability of the confession might be totally compromised and the integrity of the system of administration of justice itself made to suffer. The exclusion of evidence obtained through torture, force or other coercive methods was the means of protection of the accused developed by the judges during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when the memory of an age when such methods were commonplace still lingered. Its significance may be gauged by the fact that in English law, the rule that a confession obtained by oppression, in circumstances likely to render it unreliable must be excluded, is the only instance of the mandatory exclusion of illegality or unfairly obtained evidence. The classic statement of the common law rule as to admissibility of confession was that of Lord Sumner in Ibrahim .V. Rabiu[1]

          “It has been established that no statement by an accused is admissible in evidence against him unless it is shown by the persecution to have been voluntary statement, in the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear, or prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority”.

In common parlance, ‘voluntary’ meant simply of one’s free will’. That test of voluntariness, as defined by Lord Sumner was supplemented by Lord Parker C.J in Callis .V. Gunn[2], when he  that a confession must not have been  obtained in ‘an oppressive manner’, his observation was, strictly speaking, obiter – the case involved the admissibility of fingerprint evidence. But when the Judges’ Rules appeared in revised form in 1964, the introduction started that the rules did not affect the principle, which was overriding and applicable in all cases that:

… It is a fundamental condition of the admissibility in evidence against any person equally of any oral answer given by that person to a question put by a police officer and of any statement made by that person, that it shall have been voluntary in the sense that it has not been obtained from him by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage, exercise or held out by a person in authority.

3.    (1975) I. W. L. R. 716,721-2

Interestingly, Lord Sumner’s phrases fear of prejudice’ and ‘hope of advantage’ are habitually spoken of as ‘threats and ‘inducements’ respectively. It give rise to some problems in the application of the rules of admissibility at common law. In particular, the suggestion of some deliberate act in the words ‘threats’ and ‘inducements’ for a time led the courts to concentrate on the mind of the questioner, rather than on the mind of the suspect. As the problem may recur, despite the apparently clear wording – of the 1990 act, it is worth pursuing briefly. In R .V. Iseguilla[3], the court of Appeal concluded that:

“… Under the existing law the exclusion of a confession as a matter of law because it is not voluntary is always related to some conduct on the part of authority, which is improper or unjustified. Included in the phrase ‘improper or unjustified’ of course must be the offering of an inducement, because it is improper in this context for those in authority to try to induce a suspect to make a confession”.

This view of the law would have left the accused without recourse in a case where without any improper intent and perhaps even without realizing it, the questioner created some fear of prejudice or hope of advantage in the mind of the suspect.’ In such a case, the resulting confession might well be involuntary, but under the Isequilla rule, would nonetheless be admissible. In D.P.P .V. Ping Lin[4], the House of Lords was called upon to decide whether it was the state of mind of the questioner or that of the suspect which was to control the question of voluntariness. The House firmly held that it was the latter that governed the question of whether or not the confession was voluntary, and that should therefore also control the question of admissibility.

 

 

 

1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The rules of admissibility applied only where the fear of  prejudice or hope of advantage was excited or held out, or the oppression created by a ‘person in authority’, The question of what persons were or were not persons in authority, has, however, settled that a person in authority must have, or reasonably be thought by the suspect to have, some influence over his arrest, detention or persecution, or in other words, be of a person from who a threat or inducement might appear credible. The limitation of the rule in this way was not of great importance, since the vast majority of confessions are made to police officers and others who are undoubtedly persons in authority, and it has been abolished expressly by the Evidence Act 1990. But it remains germane to consider it in the light of the common law rule that the fear of prejudice or hope of advantage must have been generated by the person in authority, with the consequence that self-generated fears and hopes would not destroy the voluntariness of the confessions. However, the result is different under the new statutory rules, even though the confession is made to a person who previously have been a person in authority.

 

These difference under the statutory rules has lead to contradicting opinions by scholars on the definition and scope of confessional statement in crime cases in Nigeria such as in Gbadamosi .V. State[5] and the case of Sunday Onungwa .V. The state[6].   While the cited cases placed much relevance on the determining a clear definition of the concept , this research would go futher to determine the circumstances in which confessional statement are admissible and  efficient utilization of confessional statements.

 

 

 

 

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The general objective of the study is to assess the Attitude Of The Judiciary Towards Admissibility Of Confessional Statement in Nigeria. The Specific objectives of the study are :

1. to critically examine circumstances in which confessional statement are admissible
2. to determine the effect of retracted confessional statement in criminal trials in Nigeria
3. to critically examine circumstances in which confessional statements may be vitiated and application in decided cases

 

 

 

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

This study upon completion would highlight and widen scholarly perceptions of relevance of confessional statement in criminal trials Nigeria,  Thus, the study will be a response to the intellectual challenges involved in enhancing an understanding of crime admission  and confessional statements.

 

Also, this study will be of vital importance to scholars on criminology and the global reading public, and as such serve as a further take off point for future inquiry in the study under review.

1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The enormity of the subject matter has led to the selection of some aspects of our criminal laws in Nigeria. In general, reference is made to criminal justice system in Nigeria and the relevance of confessional statements in criminal cases.

 

1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research methodology is normative or doctrinal research (library research). Normative legal research is the legal researches which use the law as foundation of norm. The norm system in question is related to principle, norm, and rule from legislation, verdict, treaties, and doctrine concerned annulment of an arbitration award.[7] First stage of normative research comprises a research with purposes to achieve objective law, by conducting research on legal issues. The second stage of normative legal research is aimed at obtaining subjective law (rights and obligations).[8] It also concerns with critical review of legislation and of decisional processes and their underlying policy.[9]

 

 

1.7 DEFINITION OF TERMS

Confession: The word “confession” is derived from the Latin word ‘confessus’ which mean to speak or confess completely^{? [10]}.

Under the Evidence Act[11], confession is defined thus:

“A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charge with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.

 

Common Law: Common law is that body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals. The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. In Nigerian constitution, common law the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes.

 

 

Utility:  the definition of utility as the usefulness or relevance of a thing is adopted for this study

 

Retracted Confessional Statement: this is a denial of an earlier statement made. By such denial, an accused dissociates himself completely from previous statement. Such denials are mostly pronounced in murder case etc.

[1] (1914) A C 559, 609

 

[2] (1964) IQB 495,501

 

[3] (1999) ibid

[4] 1976) A. C, 574

[5] (1991)6 NWIR PT 196 pg 182 at 189, also Ikemson.V. State(T.989)3 NWTR PT 100 pg.455

 

[6] (1976)2 Scpg. 169 R.V. Udo Eka Ebong (1997)12 WACA

 

[7] Mukti Fajar ND, Yulianto Achmad, 2013, Dualisme Penilitian Hukum, Yogyakarta, Pensil Komunika, p. 34.

[8] Hardijan Rusli, 2006, Metode Penilitian Normatif, Jakarta, Gramedia Pustaka Utama, p. 50.

[9] Dyah ochtorina Susanti & A’an Efendi, 2015, Penelitian Hukum (Legal Research), Jakarta, Sinar Grafika, p. 10.

[10] (1952) 36Cr. App R. 91,93

[11] The lawyer’s biggest journal of Bendel State University law student Association 1989. Pg.8