"Sections 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act, 2011, become relevant in the context of this appeal. Section 28 defines confession as: A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime. Section 29 states conditions for making confession relevant. "

(1) In any proceedings a confession made by a defendant may be given in evidence against him in so far as it is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings and is not excluded by the Court in pursuance of this section.

(2) If, in any proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by a defendant, it is represented to the Court that the confession was or may have been obtained:

(a) by oppression of the person who made it: or

(b) in consequence of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in such consequence, the Court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the Court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained in a manner contrary to the provisions of this section.

(3) In any proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by a defendant, the Court may of its own motion require the prosecution, as a condition of allowing it to do so, to prove that the confession was not obtained as mentioned in either Paragraph (a) or (b) of Subsection (2) of this section.

(4) In this section "oppression" includes torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the use or threat of violence whether or not amounting to torture." What is the essence of the above provisions? There is no ambiguity in the law. Clearly, the law intends that any confessional statement obtained in an oppressive manner is liable to be vitiated for not being voluntary, and is thus inadmissible in law. That was the decision of this Court in THE STATE vs SALAWU (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) Page 580 at 605, Paras C-F."

Per BAGE, J.S.C.IN AFOLAHAN v. STATE CITATION: (2017) LPELR-43825(SC)