LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Confessional Evidence — Retraction of Confession — Duty of Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
When an accused person retracts a confessional statement at trial, it is a matter of fact for the trial court to resolve. A conviction can still be based on a retracted confession if the court is satisfied that the accused made the statement in circumstances that gave credibility to its contents.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Belgore, JSC, in Ikpo v. The State (1995) NLC-1321994(SC) at p. 17; Paras. A–B.
"When an accused person retracts a confessional statement at trial, it is a matter of fact which the trial court only can resolve. The trial court amply considered the retractions and the Court of Appeal rightly refused to interfere with the findings. A court can still base a conviction on a confessional statement, retracted at the trial, if satisfied that the accused made the statement in circumstances which gave credibility to the contents of the confession."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Retraction does not automatically render a confession inadmissible or unreliable. The trial court must assess the credibility of the confession despite the retraction. The court may convict on a retracted confession if satisfied of its truth. The principle applies established tests for retracted confessions. The appellate court will defer to the trial court’s findings unless perverse. The accused’s explanation for retraction is considered. The rule balances the accused’s right to retract with the need for reliable evidence. The court must be cautious but may still convict.