CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Confessional Statements – Distinction between Challenge to Making and Challenge to Voluntariness
Ratio Decidendi
Per Belgore, JSC, in Nwangbomu v. The State (1994) NLC-2881991(SC) at P. 4; Paras A--C:
"An accused person can resile on his statement to police officer in one of two ways. Either that he never made the statement at all, in which case it is a matter of fact to be resolved by the evidence before court; or that he made the statement or signed it but not voluntarily."
Explanation / Scope
Two distinct challenges exist to confessional statements: (1) “I never made it”—challenges authenticity; resolved through evidence (handwriting analysis, testimony about statement-taking); trial within trial unnecessary; (2) “I made it but involuntarily”—challenges voluntariness; requires trial within trial to determine if confession was obtained through force, threats, promises, or oppression. These challenges have different procedural consequences and evidentiary requirements. The first is a straightforward factual dispute. The second involves voir dire (trial within trial) examining circumstances of confession-making. Courts must identify which challenge is raised to apply correct procedures. Accused may raise both challenges (didn’t make it, or if I did, it was involuntary). This principle clarifies procedural paths for different confession challenges.