CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – WHETHER THE RETRACTION OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT AFFECTS ITS ADMISSIBILITY  

 

Admin2
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 111
06/05/2020 11:46 am  
"I, entirely, endorse the view that a retraction or denial of a confessional statement [as the lower courts found the appellant to have done] does not affect its admissibility.

 

This has long been settled in the very old cases of R. v Sapele and Anor (1952) 2 FSC 74; R v Rule (1961) All NLR 462; the relatively old decisions of Ikpasa v The State [1981] 9 SC 7;Akpan v State (1992) LPELR -381 (SC) 36; Osakwe v State [1994] 2 SCNJ 57; Nwangbonuv The State [1994] 2 NWLR (pt327) 380; Bature v State [1994] 1 NWLR (pt 320) ,267; Eragna and Ors v The AG, Bendel (1994) LPELR -(SC) 30; Idowu v State [1996] 11 NWLR (pt 574) 354; as well as the more recent decisions of Silas Sule v " State (2009) LPELR -3125 (SC) 28-30, G-B; FRN v Iweka (2011) LPELR -9350 (SC) 53; Oseni v The State (2012) LPELR -7833 (SC) 22-23.

 

What the law enjoins, in such situations, is the application of the principles which should be considered in determining whether or not to believe and act on such a confession which an accused person resiled from as enunciated in R. v. Sykes (1913) 8 C. A. R. 233, 236; Kanu v The King (1952) 14 WACA 30; The Queen v. Obiasa (1962) 1 All NLR 651; [1962] 1 SCNLR 137; Obosi v The State (1965) NMLR 129. Other cases include: Onochie and Ors v The Republic (1966) NMLR 307; Jafiya Kopa v. The State (1971) 1 All NLR 150 Dawa v The State [1980] 8 -11 SC 236; Ejinima v The State [1991] 5 LRCN 1640, 1671; Arthur Onyejekwe v The State [1992] 4 SCNJ 1, 9; [1992] 3 NWLR (Pt. 230) 444; Aiguoreghian and Anon v. The State [2004] 3 NWLR (pt 860) 367; [2004] 1 SCNJ 65; [2004] 1 SC (pt.l) 65. These are: whether there is anything outside the confession which may vindicate its veracity; whether it is corroborated in any way; whether its contents, if tested, could be true; whether the defendant had the opportunity of committing the alleged offence; whether the confession is possible and the consistency of the said confession with other facts that have been established, Osetola and Anor v The State (2012) LPELR -9348 (SC) 32-33, G-D; Kareern v FRN [2002] 7 SCM 73; Akpan v The State [2001] 11 SCM 66".- PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C
 
 
ISSA BIO VS THE STATE

Suit no:SC.475/2017

Legalpedia Electronic Citation: (2020)Legalpedia (SC) 31976
 

Quote
Share:
Views All Time
Views All Time
278404
Views Today
Views Today
283