LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW – Confessional Statements – Retracted Confession – Tests for Determining Truth of Retracted Confessional Statement
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where an extra judicial confessional statement of an accused person is retracted at the trial, a long line of cases has laid it down that some tests are to be applied to it to determine its truth. The first question you ask when you are examining the confession of a man is, is there anything outside it to show it was true? is it corroborated? are the statements made in it of fact so far as we can test them true? was the prisoner a man who had the opportunity of committing the murder? is his confession possible? is it consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and which have been proved before us?
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Idowu v. State (2000) NLC-1931999(SC) at p. 10; Paras A–B.
"Where an extra judicial confessional statement of an accused person is retracted at the trial, a long line of cases has laid it down that some tests are to be applied to it to determine its truth. The first question you ask when you are examining the confession of a man is, is there anything outside it to show it was true? is it corroborated? are the statements made in it of fact so far as we can test them true? was the prisoner a man who had the opportunity of committing the murder? is his confession possible? is it consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and which have been proved before us?"
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When an accused retracts a confessional statement, courts apply established tests to determine its truth: corroboration by external evidence; consistency with proved facts; the accused’s opportunity to commit the offence; the confession’s inherent probability; and overall consistency with the evidence. These tests ensure that retracted confessions are not automatically rejected but are carefully evaluated. A retracted confession can still ground a conviction if, after applying these tests, the court is satisfied it is true. The burden remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE
None recorded.