Effect of Extra Judicial Statement of Accused Person

The Appellant and a certain Olusegun Oboro, allegedly kidnapped the deceased, (an eighteen month old baby by the name Dada Rachel Akinboye), while she was sleeping beside her mother and gave her to one Theophilus Friday, who subsequently, murdered her and removed some of her body parts. The next day, the father of the child went to report the incident at the Police station, while the leaders of the village consulted their oracle which disclosed that it was Olusegun Oboro, Theophilus Friday and the Appellant, that killed the child. The Community, later handed over the suspects to the Police.

At the Police station, the Appellant made an extra judicial statement. Subsequently, the Appellant, along with the other suspects, were arraigned at the High Court of Ondo State for the offences of kidnapping and murder. At trial, the Appellant denied the voluntariness of his earlier extra judicial statement, and the Court conducted a trial-within-trial, after which it admitted the statement in evidence. The Prosecution called only one witness - PW1, while the Appellant testified in his defence. At the conclusion of the trial, the Court found the Appellant and the other accused persons, guilty. They were consequently, convicted and sentenced to death.

Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which confirmed the conviction and sentence. Still dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant filed a further appeal to the Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court, the Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection, challenging the grounds of appeal and issues formulated therefrom, as being incompetent.

Issue for Determination The appeal was determined on a sole issue, reframed by the Supreme Court thus:

Whether the Court of Appeal, was right to have affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant for the offences of kidnapping and murder, on the basis of the confessional statement and testimony of PW1 relied on by the trial Court.

Arguments Arguing the Preliminary Objection, the Respondent submitted that the grounds of appeal and the issues for determination, did not arise from the decision of the Court of Appeal, but rather attack the judgement of the trial Court. Reliance was placed on the case of C.C.B. PLC v JOHAN DAN OKORO EKPER (2007) 1 SC (Pt. 11) 130 in submitting that for a ground of appeal to be valid, they must be related to the decision being appealed against, and should constitute a challenge to the ratio of the decision.

The Appellant, on the other hand, urged the Court to dismiss the preliminary objection, for failure of the Respondent to file a separate motion on notice to the objection. He relied on the case of NSIRIM v NSIRIM (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 138) 286 at 297. Further, the Respondent argued that the issue distilled by the Appellant and Respondent before the Court of Appeal upon which the judgement of the Court was delivered, pertains to the Appellant’s confessional statement. He urged the Apex Court to discountenance the objection.

On the Main Appeal The Appellant submitted that, the Prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against him. He relied on the provisions of Section 3 (1) and (2) of the Anti-Kidnapping and AntiAbduction Law of Ondo State, 2010 in arguing that the ingredients of the offence of kidnapping, were not established by the Prosecution. He also stated that the ingredients of the offence of murder were not established by the Prosecution. The Appellant argued that, the Prosecution relied on the evidence of a lone witness who was not an eye witness to the crime, and that there were inconsistencies in the evidence of the Prosecution. He relied on the case of AHMED v THE STATE (1999) 5 SCNJ 223 in contending that, where there are inconsistencies in the evidence of the Prosecution on material facts, such ought to be explained by the Prosecution.

The Appellant argued further that, the Court of Appeal was wrong to have affirmed and adopted the trial Court’s admission of his extra judicial statement as a confessional statement, despite his objection to it on the ground of involuntariness. He placed reliance on the case of DANIEL NSOFOR v THE STATE (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 242) 397.

The Respondent submitted that in proving its case, the Prosecution called a lone witness and tendered exhibits. One of the exhibits revealed the mutilated body of the deceased child, and another was the extra judicial statement of the Appellant. The Respondent also argued that, the Court of Appeal will only interfere with the evaluation of evidence and finding of facts by the trial Court, if such findings are perverse or show a misapprehension of facts. The Respondent relied on the case of ATOLAGBE v SHORUM (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 360.

Contrary to the Appellant’s argument that the Prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the offences, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant’s confessional statement, revealed the role of the Appellant as the principal offender in the commission of the crime. Calling in aid the provisions of Section 8 of the Criminal Code of Ondo State Cap 37, Vol. 1, 2006 the Respondent contended that, when two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and in the prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed of such nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of such purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence. The Respondent argued in addition, that there was evidence that the deceased was kidnapped, there was a report of the murder of the deceased at the Police Station, and the prosecution’s witness saw the mutilated corpse of the deceased child at the scene of the crime. The Respondent stated that the lower Courts believed the confessional statement of the Appellant, as well as the other evidence before the Court, and rightly relied on them. He finally urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale On the Preliminary Objection Their Lordships unanimously held that the appeal related directly to the judgement of the Court of Appeal, and a challenge to the ratio of that decision. The Court also held that, issue raised in the preliminary objection was a jurisdictional question which can come in any way, even viva voce. It need not be by way of a motion on notice. The Supreme Court thereby, overruled the Respondent’s objection.

On the Main Appeal The Supreme Court, by a majority decision, held that a free and voluntary confession of guilt by an accused person, if it is direct, positive and satisfactorily proved, should occupy the high place of authenticity, when it comes to proof beyond reasonable doubt. A confession by itself alone, is sufficient without corroboration, to warrant a conviction. The Apex Court considered the extra judicial statement of the Appellant, the fact that the trial Court conducted a trial-within-trial, before admitting the extra judicial statement, and held that, the trial Court was right to have convicted the Appellant on the confessional statement.

The Court held further that, once an abettor is found to be present at the commission of the offence he abetted, he has automatically become a principal offender, and it is mandatory on the trial Court to convict him for the main offence. SANI BUJE v THE STATE (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 185) at 288. Also, where two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is the same as if each had done it individually. Each person is not only liable for his own acts but also for the sum acts of his fellow conspirators in furtherance of the common intention. In conclusion, the Court held that, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant.

Dissenting, Honourable Justice Paul Adamu Galinje, opined that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove positively that the confessional statement made by an accused person, was made voluntarily. He relied on the case of EMEKA v STATE (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 734) 666 at 681. His Lordship stated that during the trial-within-trial conducted by the trial Court, the Prosecution’s only witness was the Investigating Police Officer (PW1), who the Appellant accused of recording his statement under severe torture. Although, PW1 denied torturing the Appellant, no independent witness was called to confirm whether he tortured the Appellant or not. His Lordship, found that the Appellant’s statement was not affirmatively proved to be a voluntary confessional statement, for it to be admissible. Consequently, His Lordship allowed the appeal; discharged and acquitted the Appellant. Appeal Dismissed on a Majority of 4:1 Representation: Henry E. Omu for the Appellant

"A FREE AND VOLUNTARY CONFESSION OF GUILT BY AN ACCUSED PERSON, IF IT IS DIRECT, POSITIVE AND SATISFACTORILY PROVED, SHOULD OCCUPY THE HIGH PLACE OF AUTHENTICITY, WHEN IT COMES TO PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT"