LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Confessional Statements – Retracted Confession – Duty of Trial Judge When Confession Is Retracted
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the extra-judicial statement in the nature of a confession is subsequently denied or retracted by an accused person (as is usually and mostly the case) in his evidence before the court, a different consideration will arise and there is no necessity for a trial within trial. ... the law casts a duty on both the accused person who made the subsequent denial to impeach his earlier statement and on the trial Judge who is to test the veracity or otherwise of such statement by testing it or comparing it with other facts and circumstances outside the statement or in order to see whether they support, confirm or correspond with the said statement which will then be regarded as correct.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Adamu, JCA (as affirmed by Katsina-Alu, JSC), in Hassan v. State (2001) NLC-2812000(SC) at pp. 6–7; Paras E–B.
"Where the extra-judicial statement in the nature of a confession is subsequently denied or retracted by an accused person (as is usually and mostly the case) in his evidence before the court, a different consideration will arise and there is no necessity for a trial within trial. ... the law casts a duty on both the accused person who made the subsequent denial to impeach his earlier statement and on the trial Judge who is to test the veracity or otherwise of such statement by testing it or comparing it with other facts and circumstances outside the statement or in order to see whether they support, confirm or correspond with the said statement which will then be regarded as correct."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When an accused retracts a confession, no trial-within-trial is required (unlike voluntariness objections). The duty is on: (1) the accused to impeach their own earlier statement by showing it was not correctly recorded, not made, made while unsettled, or induced; and (2) the trial judge to test the confession’s veracity against external facts. The judge compares the confession with other evidence to see if it is supported, confirmed, or corresponds. If it does, the confession is regarded as correct. This approach balances the accused’s right to retract with the need for reliable evidence.