LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Confessional Statements — Plea of Non Est Factum Distinguished from Retraction
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where an accused person sets up a defence of non est factum in relation to a confessional statement, what he has done is not a retraction but a denial of the making of the statement.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Aiguobaruoghian & Anor v. State (2004) NLC-2942002(SC) at p. 16; Pars A–B.
"Where an accused person sets up a defence of non est factum in relation to a confessional statement, what he has done is not a retraction but a denial of the making of the statement."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A defendant who claims he never made the alleged confessional statement (non est factum — “it is not my deed”) is fundamentally different from one who admits making the statement but seeks to retract or explain it. Non est factum is a denial of authorship, not a retraction of content. The court must first determine as a fact whether the accused made the statement before applying the rules governing retracted confessions. This serves ensuring proper evidentiary analysis. The court cannot treat a denial of making the statement as a mere retraction, nor apply retraction rules without first resolving the factual dispute over authorship.