LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW – Confessional Statements – Retracted Confession – Whether a Retracted Confession Remains Admissible and Sufficient to Ground Conviction
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A confessional statement, so long as it is free and voluntary and it is direct, positive and properly proved, is enough to sustain a conviction. The court should not, however, act on the confession without first testing the truth thereof. But so long as the court is satisfied with its truth, a confessional statement alone is sufficient to ground and support a conviction without corroboration. Retraction of or resiling from a confessional statement or denial by an accused person of his having made such a statement does not ipso facto render it inadmissible in evidence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Alarape & Ors v. State (2001) NLC-872000(SC) at p. 15; Paras A–C.
"A confessional statement, so long as it is free and voluntary and it is direct, positive and properly proved, is enough to sustain a conviction. The court should not, however, act on the confession without first testing the truth thereof. But so long as the court is satisfied with its truth, a confessional statement alone is sufficient to ground and support a conviction without corroboration. Retraction of or resiling from a confessional statement or denial by an accused person of his having made such a statement does not ipso facto render it inadmissible in evidence."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A free, voluntary, direct, positive, and properly proved confession is sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroboration. Retraction does not render the confession inadmissible—it affects weight, not admissibility. The court must test the confession’s truth before acting on it. If satisfied of its truth, conviction may follow. The judge must apply established tests (e.g., consistency with proved facts, opportunity to commit offence, possibility of confession). Retraction alone is not enough to disregard the confession. The court evaluates all circumstances. This principle reflects that a person’s own admission is powerful evidence. Corroboration is desirable but not mandatory.