MZUMBE UNIVERSITY (MU)

MBEYA CAMPUS COLLEGE

ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES

PROGRAME: DIPLOMA IN LAW

SUBJECT: THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

SUBJECT CODE: LAW 039

TASK: INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT

LECTURER: MADAM KOMBA

DATE OF SUBMITION: 26th JUNE 2020

NAME: RAJABU M. RUKEHA

REGISTRATION NUMBER: 31210241/T.19

QUESTION: Juakali is charged with murder. The prosecution persuades the court to admit as a
confession to the charge of murder the statement made by Juakali before the police constable,
James, that the panga which was used to kill the deceased belongs to him. The prosecution also
persuades the court to admit as a confession the statement made by Juakali to one, mwakafulila,
the village chairman that he will not sit down and rest until when the soul of Mwijomaa, the
decease varnishes to hell. The Advocate representing Juakali object to the admissibility of two
statements as confession to the charge of murder and advance the argument that the first
statement does not have all ingredients needed for valid confession that the second statement
though given by his client but it was under the influence of anger and sickness during the time uf
utterance and that it was given to a person who is not recognized by the law to receive confession

Assume that you are the Judge who is presiding over this case, with authorities discuss this
scenario.
 WORK OUTLINE

1.0 INTRODUCTION
 Meaning of Confession

2.0 MAIN BODY

 Issues
 Law applicable
 Arguments

3.0 CONCLUSION

REFERENCE
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Meaning of Confession
According to Wigmore1 confession is an acknowledgement of guilty in express word by the
accused person. Also according to Section 3 of the Evidence Act 2 a confession refers to words or
conduct, or a combination of both words and conduct, from which, whether taken alone or in
conjunction with other facts proved, an inference my reasonably be drawn that the person who
said the words or did the act or acts constituting the conduct has committed on offence.
In Shankar v. State of T.N 3 it was stated that a confession means; “A form of admission
consisting in express word by accused person of the truth of the guilty fact charged or some
essential part of it. A statement that contains a self exculpatory matter cannot amount a
confession. The confession should be a voluntary one, that is to say, not cause by inducement,
threat or promise. Whether a confession is voluntary or not is essential a question of fact.”

2.0 MAIN BODY

ISSUES
Whether the two statement by accused amounts to confession?
Whether there are things to be taken into account?

LAW APPLICABLE
The Law of Evidence Act [Cap 6 RE 2002]

Mkareh v. R [1971] HCD no. 74

Tuwamoi v. Uganda [1967] EA 84

R v. Mela Melanyi [1971] HCD no. 398

ARGUMENTS

The following are the arguments based on the issues

1
J.H. Wigmore, A Teaties on the Anglo-America System of Evidence in Trial at common Law, 8 th Ed Vol. 1
2
[Cap 6 RE 2019]
3
[1994] 4 SCC 478
Whether the two statements by accused are amount to confession?
According to Section 28 of the Evidence Act 4 provides that a confession can be before the
magistrate it stated that “A confession which is freely and voluntary made by a person accused of
an offence in the immediate presences of a magistrate as defined in the Magistrate Court Act, or
a justice of the peace under that Act, may be proved as against that person”. Also according to
Section 27 (1) of the Evidence Act5 provides for the admissibility of the confession to police
officer it stated that “A confession voluntarily made to a police officer by a person accused of an
offence may be proved as against that person”.
According to the issue there are two statement made by accused person in two different person.
A first confession made by accused person was before the Police Constable, James that is “the
panga which was used to kill the deceased belongs to him” in the case of Mkareh v. R6, whereby
in this case the court tracing back the time, before 1980 police officers of whatever rank were not
authorized to take confession. In this case the evidence adduced by the accused’s neighbor, a
police corporal who testified that the appellant called him and said “I have killed go in and see”
and he showed him the dead body of his wife. It was alleged that this evidence was inadmissible
because under Section 27 of the Evidence Act7 (before amendment) police officer were not
allowed to take any confession. However, in the current perspective, the Evidence Act under
Section 7(1) provide that “A confession voluntarily made to police officer by a person accused of
a offence may be proved as against such person”. Under section 3 of the Evidence Act define
police officer “means any member of the Police Force of or above the rank of corporal”. So that
if the confession made by police officer who is under the rank of corporal such confession will
be inadmissible, this was referred in the case of Gervas Kilongozi v. R8, in this case the appellant
was charged wand conviction with murder. The trial court based the conviction on a confession
that the appellant made to a police officer whose rank is not shown the evidence. On appeal the
conviction on confession was challenge as being on inadmissible evidence. According to the
scenario the accused person made a confession to a police officer who is under the rank of
corporal.

4
[cap 6 RE 2019]
5
[Cap 6 RE 2002]
6
[1971] HCD 74
7
[Cap 6 RE 2019]
8
[1994] TLR 39 CA
Second; statement or confession made by accused person to Village Chairman that is “he will not
sit down and rest until when the soul of Mwijoma, the deceased vanishes to hell”. According to
section 27(3) of the Evidence Act9 it stated that “A confession shall be held to be involuntary if
the court believes that it was induced by any threat, promise or other prejudice held out by the
police officer to whom it was made or by any member of the Police Force or by any person in
authority”. Also according to Section 28 of the Evidence Act it stated that “A confession which
is freely and voluntarily made a person accused of an offence in the immediate presence of a
magistrate as defined in the Magistrate Court Act, or a justice of the peace under that Act, may
be proved as against that person”. Under the scenario it shows that the second confession though
given under the influence of anger and sickness during utterance this is according to the
Advocate who represent the accused person. In the case of Tuwamoi v. Uganda10, the court held
that; there are no clear distinction between repudiate and retracted confessions and for any of the
them to be accepted by court it should be done with great caution and the court should first
satisfy itself that all circumstances surrounding the confession do not negative. To amount a
retracted confession the accused person admits having made the statement recorded but he now
wishes to take it back on the ground that it was made involuntarily where as repudiate confession
is a statement which the accused person avers he never made.

Whether there are things to be taken into account?

According to the scenario the first confession may not taken into account because, according to
Section 3 of the Evidence Act which provide for to whom confession can be made it stated that
“means any member of the Police Force of or above the rank of corporal”, also the case of
Mkareh v. R both the provision and case show that the confession according to scenario cannot
taken into account. Also
According to second confession before the court to taken a confession into account, the court
should satisfy itself that all circumstance surrounding the confession do not negative this was
held in the case of Tuwamoi v. Ugamda and also the case of R v. Mela Melanyi11

3.0 CONCLUSION
9
[Cap 6 RE 2019]
10
[1967] EA 84
11
[1971] HCD 398
Generally; Above the scenario as a judge who is presiding over this case, the accused may be
acquitted because the prosecution side has fail to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt,
according to Section 110 of the Evidence Act, also by looking the issues which was raised
before, and both confession which was made into two different persons. According to the
scenario as a judge who presiding over this case, the accused may be acquitted.
REFERENCE

STATUTE

THE EVIDENCE ACT [CAP 6 RE 2019]

CASES

Mkareh v. R [1971] HCD no. 74

Tuwamoi v. Uganda [1967] EA 84

R v. Mela Melanyi [1971] HCD no. 398

Shankar v. State of T.N [1994] 4 SCC 478

R v. Mela Melanyi [1971] HCD 398

BOOKS

J.H. Wigmore, A Teaties on the Anglo-America System of Evidence in Trial at common Law, 8 th
Ed Vol. 1