LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Confessional Statements – Retracted Confession – Duty of Accused Person Seeking to Impeach Confessional Statement
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An accused person who wants to resile from or retract his earlier confessional statement which he made extra-judiciously to the police, such a statement is not rendered inadmissible by the mere denial or retraction by the said accused person unless he leads sufficient evidence to rebut the accusation by the prosecution and it is thus his duty to explain to the court (as part of his defence) the reason(s) for the inconsistency between his earlier confessional statement to the police and the evidence he has given in his oral testimony before the court. Such an accused person who wishes to impeach his earlier extra-judicial statement has an onerous duty to establish that his earlier confessional statement cannot be true or correct by showing any of the following four events or instances:- (a) that he was not correctly recorded; or (b) that he, in fact did not make the statement; or (c) that he was unsettled in mind at the time he made the statement; or (d) that he was induced to make the statement.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Adamu, JCA (as affirmed by Katsina-Alu, JSC), in Hassan v. State (2001) NLC-2812000(SC) at pp. 7–8; Paras D–A.
"An accused person who wants to resile from or retract his earlier confessional statement which he made extra-judiciously to the police, such a statement is not rendered inadmissible by the mere denial or retraction by the said accused person unless he leads sufficient evidence to rebut the accusation by the prosecution and it is thus his duty to explain to the court (as part of his defence) the reason(s) for the inconsistency between his earlier confessional statement to the police and the evidence he has given in his oral testimony before the court. Such an accused person who wishes to impeach his earlier extra-judicial statement has an onerous duty to establish that his earlier confessional statement cannot be true or correct by showing any of the following four events or instances:- (a) that he was not correctly recorded; or (b) that he, in fact did not make the statement; or (c) that he was unsettled in mind at the time he made the statement; or (d) that he was induced to make the statement."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Mere retraction does not render a confession inadmissible. The accused bears an onerous duty to impeach the statement by showing: (a) incorrect recording; (b) not making the statement; (c) unsettled mind at the time; or (d) inducement. The accused must explain the inconsistency between the confession and trial testimony. Without such evidence, the confession remains admissible and can be acted upon. The prosecution need not call the recording officer unless the accused challenges the statement’s making. This places responsibility on the accused to substantiate retraction claims, preventing automatic rejection of confessions.