LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Confessional Statements – Confirmation Before Superior Police Officer – Whether Mandatory
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is not the requirement of any law that if a confessional statement has not been read over and confirmed before a Superior Police Officer, it will ipso facto cease to be effective or be rendered inadmissible. Such a confirmation simply makes proof of its voluntariness easier and no more.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Alarape & Ors v. State (2001) NLC-872000(SC) at p. 19; Paras A–C.
"It is not the requirement of any law that if a confessional statement has not been read over and confirmed before a Superior Police Officer, it will ipso facto cease to be effective or be rendered inadmissible. Such a confirmation simply makes proof of its voluntariness easier and no more."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Confirmation of a confessional statement before a Superior Police Officer is not mandatory for admissibility. No law renders a statement ineffective or inadmissible solely because it was not so confirmed. Confirmation merely makes proof of voluntariness easier for the prosecution. The absence of confirmation does not render the statement involuntary or unreliable. The court still assesses voluntariness based on all circumstances. The requirement is procedural, not jurisdictional. The prosecution may prove voluntariness through other evidence (e.g., testimony of the recording officer, absence of threats). The principle prevents technical exclusion of otherwise voluntary confessions.