LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW — Confessional Statements — Voluntariness — Requirement of Trial Within Trial
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
There would be need for a trial within a trial where the appellant can clearly demonstrate by the nature of the language he used to express his ordeal that the statement credited to him was obtained by force, trick or non-recognizable legal ways. In the absence of that it will be idle for this court to forage out in an attempt to be considered to have done its duties magnificently.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Pats-Acholonu, JSC, in Obisi v. Chief of Naval Staff (2004) NLC-1572002(SC) at pp. 9–10; Paras E–A.
"There would be need for a trial within a trial where the appellant can clearly demonstrate by the nature of the language he used to express his ordeal that the statement credited to him was obtained by force, trick or non-recognizable legal ways. In the absence of that it will be idle for this court to forage out in an attempt to be considered to have done its duties magnificently and according to its calling."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A trial within trial is required only where the accused demonstrates that the statement was obtained by force, trick, or illegal means. Mere allegation without demonstrated basis does not necessitate a trial within trial. The principle applies to criminal proceedings. The accused must raise a genuine issue of involuntariness. The rule prevents unnecessary trials within trials. The court will not conduct a trial within trial on speculative or unsubstantiated claims.
