EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT – Whether a court can convict on a retracted confessional statement
“It is indisputably on record that the Appellant made Exhibits 2, 2A and 7 as his confessional statements to the offences charged and never objected to their admissibility when tendered, although he attempted to retract same to prove his innocence. Nevertheless, the trial Court putting all caution together convicted and sentenced him as affirmed by the lower Court. The retraction of the confessional statement by an accused person in his evidence on oath during the trial is of no moment as it does not adversely affect the situation once the Court is satisfied as to its truth and it can rely solely on the confessional statement to ground a conviction. See per Ikechi Francis Ogbuagu, JSC, in NWACHUKWU V. STATE (2007) LPELR-8075(SC) (PP. 35-36, PARAS. D-A). In the stark ignorance and foolhardiness of some offenders or accused persons doctored sometimes by their lawyers, they have the premonition in their criminal trial that it is wisdom and ingenuity for exculpation or defence to retract a statement once made, confessed or admitted. I must categorically state that whether a confessional statement is retracted or not, the Court is not an empty or resounding cymbal that responds to a sound once beaten. Whether from the Prosecution or the Defence, every case must be considered and that is the weight the Court gives to whatever is garbaged in and garbaged out by either party before it. Besides, where the accused person has been squarely fixed to a crime, as in the instant appeal, whereas the Appellant was fully identified as one of the armed robbers by both PW1 and PW2, his confessional statement must bow, be subservient and subordinate to eyewitness or direct evidence. Direct evidence establishes a fact without making any inference to connect the evidence to the fact. Thus, direct evidence proves or disproves a fact directly. See PAUL V. STATE (2019) LPELR-47386(SC) (PP. 27-28 PARAS. B). Direct evidence as that of PW1 and PW2 need no presumption, inference, collaboration or confirmation, except it is not a direct evidence properly so called. A confessional statement MAY need some collaboration or presumption to pass the test but not so with a direct evidence. Thus, the confessional statement of the Appellant in the face of the direct evidence of PW1 and PW2 cannot be worthy of consideration whether retracted or not.” Per UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC in AKINKUNMI v. STATE (2022-LCER-46533-SC) (Pp 39 – 41; Paras D – C)
Facts
FACTS:
The appellant, who was the second accused person at the Abeokuta Judicial Division of the High Court of Ogun State, was arraigned alongside three other accused persons, on a four-count charge of Conspiracy to commit Armed Robbery, Armed Robbery and Attempted Armed Robbery contrary to Sections 6 (b), 1 (2)(a) and 2 (2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap R11 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
At the trial, the appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges. The Prosecution called eight (8) witnesses and tendered exhibits in proof of their case. In their defence, the appellant and his co-accused persons testified for themselves and their Counsel addressed the Court. The trial Court, in its judgment delivered on the 19th day of October, 2015, convicted and sentenced the appellant to death by hanging. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. By a judgment delivered on the 6th day of December, 2019, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal hence this further appeal to the Apex Court.
Issues
The appeal was determined on the following issues:
1. Whether the lower Court was right in affirming the trial Court’s acceptance of and reliance on the appellant’s confessional statements; and
2. Whether the lower Court was right in affirming the trial Court’s conviction and sentence of the appellant.
Lead Judge(ment)
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)
Held
The appeal was unanimously dismissed. The concurrent conviction and sentence of the appellant were further affirmed.
Alternate Citations
(2022) LPELR-57285(SC)
Read Full Judgment
Counsel:
YEMI A. ADESINA, ESQ.
For Appellant(s)
Absent
For Respondent
For Appellant(s)
For Respondent(s)
Counsel’s Photograph(s) Needed.