Legal Framework of Taking Confessional Statements Under The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (Acja) 2015 An Appraisal by Oluwanimbe A. Omolaja

LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF TAKING CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS
UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

(ACJA) 2015: AN APPRAISAL
BY
OLUWANIMBE A. OMOLAJA
MATRIC NO. : 189061113
BEING A LONG ESSAY SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF

LAW IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER OF LAWS (LLM) 2018-2020
DEGREE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS, AKOKA-
LAGOS, NIGERIA
NOVEMBER, 2021
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4074098

CERTIFICATION
I certify that this LL.M Long Essay was carried out by OMOLAJA, Oluwanimbe Adeseye
with Matric Number: 189061113, in the Faculty of Law, University of Lagos, under my
supervision.
________________________________ _________________
SUPERVISOR DATE
DR. AKEEM BELLO
Department of Public Law
Faculty of Law, University of Lagos, Nigeria
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First, I acknowledged the fact that completing this programme would have been herculean
without God‟s help.
Second, writing a project is not a tea-party without a supervisor. Thus, I use this medium to
candidly acknowledge my project supervisor. Indeed he cuts to size, fit and proper, the free
flowing thoughts unbecoming of legal thoughts and research.
Third, I acknowledge my parents and siblings who have all made things beautiful and
meaningful.
Fourth, my acknowledgement will go to my mentor and teacher, Barrister Rotimi Akomolafe
the spark plug of my discoveries.
iii

ABSTRACT
This work examines the problems associated with the taking of Confessional Statements
under criminal justice administration in the country which led to introduction of reforms in
the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. In the course of investigation of criminal
matters, the police are prone to obtaining statements from suspects by use of force, torture
and violence thereby infringing on rights of the accused and raising questions as to
voluntariness or admissibility of such confession. A person standing trial for a criminal
offence enjoys the presumption of innocence until guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
However, the court is often faced with objections to the admissibility of confessional
statements based on the ground of involuntariness. Confession plays a pivotal role in the
pursuit of criminal trial, the foundation of which rests on truth and accuracy. The work
adopting a doctrinal and comparative approach examines the reforms introduced by the
Administration of Criminal Justice Act designed to address the problems with taking of
Confessional Statements. The approach by the Court of Appeal in a line of cases holding that
non-compliance with the reforms does not render the confession inadmissible because
admissibility is regulated by the Evidence Act renders the reform nugatory. The work
drawing lessons from India recommends the India approach to deal with the problem of
Confessional Statements by requiring that all confessions must be taken before Magistrates.
The work also recommends amending the Evidence Act to incorporate the requirement.
Keywords: Legal Framework, Confessional Statements, Administration of Criminal
Justice.
iv

TABLE OF CASES
Nigerian Cases Page
1. Anandagoda vs R(1962) 1 WLR 817 at 832…………………………………7

2. Commissioner of customs vs Harz and Powers (1967) 2 WLR 297………. ...7
3. Babarinde & Ors v. State (2013) LPELR-21896(SC)1 at 14 – 15…………....8
4. Hassan v. State(2016)LPELR-42554(SC) page 1 at 15……………………....8
5. Ogu v. C.O.P (2017)LPELR-43832(SC) page 1 at 18 - 19…………………..8
6. State. v. Sani(2018) LPELR-43598(SC) page 1 at 23………………………..8
7. C.O.P v. Alozie (2017) LPELR-41983(SC) page 1 at 37 – 38……………….8
8. Adelarin Lateef & Ors. v. F.R.N(2010) 37 WRN 85 @25 – 45……………...9
9. Jimoh & Anor. v. The State(2011) LPELR-4357. (CA)19 - 20……………....9
10. Corporate Jonathan Draws v.The State (1980) 8-11 S.C. 236………………..17
11. Davo v. Commissioner of Police(1981) 3 P.L.R 203………………………....17
12. R. v. Nimiel Viapbong(1961) NRNLR 47………………………………….....10
13. R.v.Thompson(1783) 1 Leach 291………………………………………….....11
14. Commissioner of Custom and Excise v. Power(1967) 51 CAR. 123……….....11
15. Charles v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (2018) LPELR-43922(CA)….…..12, 15
16. Nnajiofor v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria(2018) LPELR-43925(CA)….…12, 15
17. Oluwatoyin v. The State(2018) LPELR-44441(CA)…………………………...12, 15
18. Enang v. The State(2019) LPELR-48682(CA)………………………………...12, 15
19. Oguntoyinbo v. FRN(2018) LPELR-45218(CA)……………………………....12, 15
20. Godwin Elewanna v. The State(2019) LPELR-47605 (CA)………...................12, 15
21. Emeka Ike v. The State of Lagos(2019) LPELR-47712(CA)………………….16
22. Olisaeloka v. The State(2017) LPELR-45255 (CA)……………………………12, 16
23. Samuel Ayo Omoju v. FRN(1979) 69 Cr App R 243………………………......20
24. Daniel Nsofor v. The State LPELR [2004] S.C 218/2002…………………….. 20
25. Saidu v The State (1982) 4 SC 41………………………………………… 25
26. Balogun v A.G. Federation(1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 345) 458………………... …...25
27. Chief of Air Staff v. Iyen. (2005) 6 NWLR (pt.922) 496………………………39

28. FRN v Femi Fani Kayode(2010) 14 NWLR (Pt 1214) 481…………………….39
29. Amaechi v INEC(2008)5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) p.227………………......................39
Foreign Cases
1. R v Hulbert(1979) 69 Cr App R 243……………………………………………20

2. Brown v Mississippi 297US 278 (1936)…………………………………..........24
3. Sitramayya v R AIR 1951 M 61, 63…………………………………………....26
4. Tandra Rani v State of A.P 2001 CrLJ 4048…………………………………...27
5. Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 607………………………..29
6. Pakkirisamy v. State of T. N. (1998) Cri LJ 89 (SC)…………………………...30
7. State of Karnataka v. A.B.Nag Raj. (1964) 64 C.N.L.R. 265 (P.C.)…………...32
8. Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 119…………………………35
9. Narayan Singh & Ors v. State of M.P. 1985 AIR 1678………………………...30
vi

TABLE STATUTES
Page
Administration Criminal Justice Act 2015

Section 1…………………………………………………………………………….6
Section 2(1)………………………………………………………………………….8
Section 17, 17(1&3)………………………………………………………………... 12, 15, 16
Section 15(4)……………………………………………………………………….. 12, 15, 22
Administration of Criminal Justice Laws of Lagos State 2011

Section (9)………………………………………………………………………….. 16
Section 494………………………………………………………………………… 10
The Constitution of Federal Republic Nigeria (CFRN) 1999 Cap C23, LFN 2004
Section 36………………………………………………………………………… 16
The Criminal procedure Code …………………………………………………... 9

Criminal Procedure Act Cap C41 (LFN) 2004………………………………….. 9
Evidence Act Cap E14 2011
Section 28……………………………………………………………………….… 4
Section 29(2), 135………………………………………………………………... 16, 18, 25
Section 31…………………………………………………………………………. 17, 25
Section 160(b)…………………………………………………………………….. 21
Section 27…………………………………………………………………………. 7
Police Act Cap P19 LFN 2004

Section 60………………………………………………………………………….. 3
Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 (PACE)

Section 76…………………………………………………………………………. 30
Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act

Section 9……………………………………………………………………………..23
Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 24…………………………………………………………………………...29
Section 25…………………………………………………………………………. 26
Section 162………………………………………………………………………….26, 28
Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 1975 (as Amended)

Section 164(1-2)…………………………………………………………………….27, 28
Section 281, 463…………………………………………………………………… 29
vii

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION
 ACJA Administration of Criminal Justice Act

 ACJL Administration of Criminal Justice Law
 AGF Attorney General of the Federation
 ANLR All Nigerian Law Report
 CA Court of Appeal
 Cap Chapter
 CFRN Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
 CJN Chief Justice of Nigeria
 CPA Criminal Procedure Act
 CPC Criminal Procedure Code

 COP Commissioner of Police
 EFCC Economics and Financial Crime Commission
 FRN Federal Republic of Nigeria
 IGP Inspector General of Police
 JCA Justice Court of Appeal
 JSC Justice of Supreme Court
 LFN Laws of Federation Nigeria
 LPELR Law Pavilion Electronic Law Report
 NBA Nigerian Bar Association
 NWLR Nigerian Weekly Law Report
 SCNJ Supreme Court of Nigeria Judgment
viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Title Page i
Certification ii
Acknowledgment iii
Abstract iv
Table of Cases v
Table of Statutes vii
Table of Abbreviation viii
Table of Contents ix
CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 2
1.3 Research Objectives 3
1.4 Research Questions 3
1.5 Operational Definition of Terms 4
1.6 Scope of Study 4
1.7 Research Methodology 5
1.8 Chapterization 5
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS
2.1 Introduction 6
2.2 Existing problems with the Regime for taking Confessional Statements 7
2.2.1 Challenge to Voluntariness of Confessional Statements 8
2.2.2 Need for Trial within trial and Associated delays 8
2.2.3 Delay occasioned by Trial within trial 9
2.2.4 Abuse of Fundamental Rights of Suspects 10
2.3 Reforms under ACJA and ACJL 11
2.4 Continuous gaps existing in Pre-ACJA and ACJL Regimes 12
ix

2.5 Conclusion 13
CHAPTER THREE: THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT (ACJA),
2015
3.1 History of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 14
3.2 Judicial Controversy on Confessional Statement under the 15
ACJA and ACJL vis a vis Evidence Act
3.3 Meaning and Concept of Confessional Statement 19
3.4. Retraction of Confessional Statement 20
3.5. Procedure for obtaining Confessional Statement 21
3.6 Analysis of Confessional Statement 23
3.7 Conclusion 25
CHAPTER FOUR: ENFORCEMENT OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IN OTHER

JURISDICTIONS
4.1. Confessional Statement under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 26
4.2. Confessional Statement in the United Kingdom 30
4.3 Evidential Value of Confessional Statement 31
4.4. Statement of Accused made before the Police 32
4.5 Proof of Judicial Confessional Statement 35
4.6 Conclusion and Comparison of Indian Model on Confessional Statement 36
with Nigeria Model
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Summary 38
5.2. Recommendation 39
5.3. Conclusion 44
BIBLIOGRAPHY 45

11

CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
There were incidences of torture, maltreatment which led to miscarriage of justice in respect
of dealing with accused persons. This hardship formed the major background which led to
the enactment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 applicable in
Federal Capitla Territory, Abuja and the Administration of Criminal Justice Law, Lagos State
2007 (Amended in 2011). The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 was
welcomed with an air of relief as it made attempts of speedily bringing criminals to book as
well as protecting the victims of crime; amongst other things. This was a commitment
yearned for by the entire criminal justice administration sector and the society at large 1. The
ACJA 2015 merges the main provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), Criminal
Procedure Northern State Act 2004 and Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) into one principal
Federal Enactment, which applies to all Federal Courts across the Federation as well as all
courts of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), but it does not apply to a Court Martial.
The ACJA introduced new innovative provisions that will enhance the efficiency of the
justice system. In other words, the ACJA 2015 builds upon the existing framework of
criminal justice administration in the country. However, it filled the gaps observed in these
laws over the course of several decades. The contents as revised and updated by the Panel on
Implementation of Justice Reform (PIJR), with the support of the Centre for Socio-Legal
1
Lawyard on Administration of Justice Act <http://www.lawyard.ng/administration-of-criminal-justice-act-
2015-innovations-challenges-and-way-forward/> accessed on 2 May 2018

Studies have now been enacted into law2. Criminal legislation regulating procedure is one of
the most important components of the criminal justice system because it defines rights,
duties, obligations and relationships with other components and continuous changes in social
interactions and configuration demands a progressive review of all criminal legislations.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Despite the advent and introduction of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA)
2015, certain challenges still exist pertaining to Criminal Justice Administration. First and
foremost is the existing conflict on admissibility of evidence between the Administration of
Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 and Evidence Act, 2015. The issue of admissibility is the
exclusive preserve of the Evidence Act as it is expressly contained in the Exclusive
Legislative List of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) 1999, thus
state laws are barred and cannot legislate on the given subject. There has been plethora of
decided cases on both scenario but the matter remains unresolved.
Secondly, instances of confessional statements being taken involuntarily are still being
recorded despite the fact that the laid down legislation stipulates statements must be taken
voluntarily. Failure to comply with this given procedure creates situations where suspects are
subjected to torture or inhumane treatment before their confessions are made or taken.
2
Professor Yemi Akinseye-George, (SAN, FCIArb Legal Practitioner and Consultant) The Administration of
Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015: An Overview in relation to criminal cases adjudication in the Federal High
Court. Published on <http://www.censolegs.org/publications/4.pdf>accessed 6 June 2018

Thirdly, the conduct of Trial within trial is inevitable when defendants challenge the
voluntariness of Confessional Statements.3 This delays the process of administration of
justice, consuming time of the court and causing congestion. The obtainable process in
Nigeria can be juxtaposed with that of other countries.
Research Objectives
The objectives of the study are;
1) Examine the procedure under the Administration of Justice Act (2015) and
Administration of Criminal Justice Law, Lagos State (2011) for the taking of
Confessional Statements.
2) Examine the implication of non-compliance with the procedure for taking of
Confessional Statements under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (2015)
and Administration of Criminal Justice Law, Lagos State (2011).
3) Examine other options for regulating the taking of Confessional Statements in
Nigeria.
1.2 Research Questions
1) What is the procedure under the Administration of Justice Act (2015) and
Administration of Criminal Justice Law, Lagos State (2011) for the taking of
Confessional Statements?
3
Innovative provisions of Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 published on
<http://thenationonlineng.net/innovative-provisions-of-administration-of-criminal-justice-act-2015/>

2) What are the implications of non-compliance with the procedure for taking of
Confessional Statements under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (2015) and
Administration of Criminal Justice Law, Lagos State (2011)?
3) What are the other options for regulating the taking of Confessional Statements in
Nigeria?
1.3 Operational Definition of Terms
“Accused” is a person or group of people who are charged with or on trial for a crime.
“Act” means an Act of the National Assembly, whether passed before or after the
commencement of the Interpretation Act, and includes this Act (ACJA) and any
instrument made before the first day of October, 1960, in so far as the instrument has
effect as an Act.
“Administration of Criminal Justice” involves the detection, apprehension, detention,

prosecution, adjudication, correctional supervision,
or rehabilitation of accused persons or criminal offenders.
“Confession” – is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime,

stating or suggesting the inference that he/she committed that crime.
“Confessional Statement” is a factual account volunteered by a suspect himself giving

or suggesting an inference that he committed the offence charged.
“Criminal Justice” is the system through which crimes and criminals are processed.
“Legal Framework” are particular set of rules which are utilized in dealing with
problems.
“Procedure” is an established or official way of doing something or series of actions

conducted in a certain order or manner.
1.4 Scope of the Study
The study is an extensive examination of the procedure of taking confessional statements in
Nigeria, and the relevant legislations on confessional statements and ways in which they can

be properly implemented in order to address the challenges associated with confessional
statement in Nigeria.
1.6 Research Methodology
The research methodology used for this long essay is analytical and doctrinal in nature.
Doctrinal research involves in-depth analysis of legal doctrines. It is the most common
methodology employed by those undertaking research in law, inquiring what the law is in a
particular case. On the other hand, Analytical research is a specific type of research that
involves critical thinking skills and evaluation of facts and information relative to the
research being conducted. The research also employs comparative study by examining the
laws governing taking of Confessional Statements in India and England.
This research intends to source materials from two major sources, that is primary and
secondary sources. The primary sources include statutes and case laws while the secondary
sources include journal articles by prominent scholars, textbook writers and other relevant
materials required to facilitate the purpose of this project.
1.7 Chapterization
Chapter One covers the introduction to the long essay. Chapter Two is the literature review
identifying loopholes in the framework of confessional statement. Chapter Three deals with
the Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2015 with emphasis on its provisions in
relation to confessional statements. Chapter Four provides a comparative analysis on taking
confessional statement in India, United Kingdom and Nigeria. Finally, Chapter Five bring the
long essay to an end with conclusion and summary and also proffers recommendation.

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The subject matter of this study is one under an area of law where quite a number of authors
have written and have held different views but have technically arrived at the same basic
conclusion, as a result of this, various classical texts by renowned scholars and jurists on the
field shall be discussed. Murphy4 defines confession from the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act 1984 which in its section 82(1) defines confession to include:
„Any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person

who made it, whether made to a person in authority or
not and whether made in words or otherwise”.
However, it was opined that the reliability of the confession might be fatally compromised,
and the integrity of the system of administration of justice itself made to suffer if such
confession was coerced or forced. Aguda5, Nwadialo6 and Adah7, hold the same view about
confession. Aguda8 defines confession as an admission made at any time by a person
charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime and if
it is voluntary it is deemed to be relevant fact against the person who made it only9.
Nwadialo10 dealt extensively on procedures for obtaining confessions and conducting trials,
4
Peter Murphy “A Practical Approach to Evidence” 4 th edn., (Blackstone Press Limited, 1992) 226
5
Aguda T.A. “Law of Evidence” 4th edn., (Spectrum Books Limited Ibadan, 1999) 44
6
Nwadialo F. “Modern Nigeria Law of Evidence” (Benin City: Ethiope Publishing Corporation, 1981), 117
7
Eche Adah C. “The Nigerian Law of Evidence” (Ibadan: Malthouse Law Books, 1997) 241
8
Aguda T.A. “Law of Evidence” 4th edn., (Spectrum Books Limited Ibadan, 1999) 44
9
Edet Obosi vs State (1965) NMLR 119 at 122
10
Nwadialo F., “Modern Nigeria Law of Evidence” (Benin City: Ethiope Publishing Corporation, 1981), 117

he sees confession as a species of admission as held in Anandagoda v R11 and also in
Commissioner of customs vs Harz and Powers12.
Furthermore, statutory provisions like the Evidence Act13, Criminal Procedure Act, Criminal
Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure (Statement to Police Officers Rule) 1960, and the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) are all statutory provisions ensuring
that the processes of the law is followed to the letter. The Evidence Act14 defines confession
as an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the
inference that he committed that crime.
2.2 Existing Problems with the Regime for taking Confessional Statements
There is no gainsaying the fact that despite all the innovations introduced by the
Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA), existing challenges such as objection
to voluntariness and admissibility of confessional statement, violation of rights of accused
have not been eliminated, thereby necessitating trial within trial which causes very
substantial delay in criminal trials. The said Act has not eradicated the issue and therefore the
problem is still extant. It is a known fact that trial within trial causes delays in criminal trials.
There is likelihood of the breach of the Defendant‟s right to fair hearing. Trial within trials
are full blown trials within the substantive criminal trial and possess all the incidents of a full
trial where the trial Judges will form their opinions about the witnesses including the
Defendant/Accused person. There is thus the risk of trial Judges being human, taking some
set positions with respect to the credibility of the Accused persons and or their evidence or
stories as for instance when the Court in the Ruling on the trial within trial finds that the
11
(1962) 1 WLR 817 at 832
12
(1967) 2 WLR 297
13
Cap E14 LFN 2004
14
Section 27 Evidence Act Cap E14 LFN 2004

Accused person is not a witness of truth. This may detrimentally affect the assessment of the
integrity of the witness and the credibility of his evidence by the Court during the main trial
as was pronounced in Babarinde & Ors v. State15. There is also the issue with delay in
court process and administration of criminal justice by virtue of conducting trial within trial.
2.2.1 Challenges to Voluntariness of Confessional Statement
In Hassan v. State16 where the Supreme Court Per Olabode Rhodes – Vivour, JSC, held as
follows: "When in the course of trial the prosecution seeks to tender the confessional
statement of an accused person, as it happened in this case and there is an objection on the
grounds that it was obtained under duress and not voluntarily made, what is in issue is the
admissibility in evidence of the confession and the trial Judge must order that a trial-within-
trial (mini trial) is held. The purpose of a trial-within-trial is to determine whether or not the
confession was voluntary. Ogu v. C.O.P17, State v. Sani18,C.O.P v. Alozie.19 The trial
within trial occasions delay in the administration of criminal justice and waste the time of the
court. The challenged to admissibility are usually predicated on grounds that it was not
voluntarily taken, indicating incidences of torture or coercion on the accused.
2.2.2 Need for Trial within Trial and Associated delays
The Supreme Court in the case of Babarinde & Ors v. State (Supra) clearly explained the
procedure for trial within trial as follows: “it is necessary to reiterate the fact that a trial
within trial is a complete process in itself within the substantive trial. The trial Court halts the
main trial to conduct a mini trial specifically to determine whether or not a confessional
15
(2013) LPELR-21896(SC) page 1 at 14 – 15
16
(2016)LPELR-42554(SC) page 1 at 15
17
(2017)LPELR-43832(SC) page 1 at 18 - 19
18
(2018) LPELR-43598(SC) page 1 at 23
19
(2017) LPELR-41983(SC) page 1 at 37 – 38

statement allegedly made by an accused person was made voluntarily.20 As submitted by
learned counsel for the respondents, the witnesses in a trial within trial are re-sworn. They
testify, call additional witnesses if necessary, and tender exhibits; the witnesses are subjected
to cross-examination and at the conclusion of the trial, counsel to the parties address the
Court. The Court delivers a considered ruling on the voluntariness or otherwise of the
statements sought to be tendered.”
2.2.3 Delay occasioned by Trial within Trial
It is submitted that the Nigerian criminal justice system has come of age and can do away
with the age long practice of conducting trial within trial whenever the admissibility of a
confessional statement is objected to on the ground of voluntariness based on the reasons
adumbrated below:
A trial within trial wastes the time of the court as it is a complete trial on its own and the
main case can suffer several adjournments in order to procure witnesses while the accused
person will be languishing in prison, except if he has been granted bail. The ruling of the
Judge on the admissibility of the statement is also appealable, even to the Supreme Court.21
More so, the court will have to consider other surrounding circumstances before it can act on
the confessional statement of the accused, the mere fact that the court even admits the
statement as being made voluntarily during the trial within trial doesn‟t automatically
translate to the fact that the court will convict the accused based on such admitted
20
Adelarin Lateef & Ors. v. F.R.N.(2010) 37 WRN 85 @ 107 lines 25-45; Jimoh & Anor. v. The State(2011)
LPELR-4357 (CA) 1 @19-20 F-D
21
See Auta v. The State (1975) 1 ALL N.L.R (PT. 1) 165; Owei v. The State (1985)1 N.WL.R. (PAN 3) 470;
Ogbodu v. The State (1986) 5 N.WL.R. (PART 41)294; Okaroh v. The State (1988) 3 N.WL.R. (PT. 1) 214.
See specifically Okaroh v. State (1990) ANLR 130 @ 137, where the Court of Appeal castigated the procedure
of trial-within-trial on the ground that there was no enabling statute either in the Evidence Act or the Criminal
Procedure Act (Law) to support it. And that with the ultimate abolition of the jury system in criminal trials in
Nigeria, the trial-within-trial procedure had allegedly become rather spent or superfluous. However, the
Supreme Court did not take kindly to that notion.

confessional statement. Hence, the whole process of calling witnesses, examining, cross-
examining and re-examining them, tendering exhibits and delivering addresses in order to
determine the sole issue of voluntariness is needless, as the time expended on such processes
can be effectively utilized by the court in hearing the elements of the case. This is much more
so, as the witnesses will repeat almost all what they have informed the court in the trial
within trial when they are put in the witness box to testify in the main case. Thus, if the trial
within trial is jettisoned, it will lead to faster dispensation of justice and reduce the numerous
years that such cases spend in court.
2.2.4 Abuse of Fundamental Rights of Suspect
The courts are well aware of the attitude of the accused person and defence counsel when it
comes to a criminal matter and tendering of a confessional statement made by the accused to
the police. If not for anything, for exercise of their constitutional right to fair hearing22 and in
consonance with established principles of law; whether the objection has merits or not, the
court must bow to the dictates of the law and determine admissibility.
a. Torture, threat or use of violence
A confession which is obtained as a result of an inducement will not be admissible in
evidence. The inducement refers to an inducement to make a statement and need not be to
confess the truth. For instance, in R. v. Nimiel Viapbong23, Hurley SPJ (as he then was) said:
“The caution was clearly an inducement to speak. An accused person can hardly be expected
to keep silent when told that he need not say anything.” Inducement is usually held to be a
promise of advantage or a threat of disadvantage. Therefore, the circumstances under which a
statement was made may also determine whether or not it was induced. Such inducement
22
Section 36 CFRN 1999
23
(1961) NRNLR 47
10

may be by words accompanied by conduct from which the promise or threat can reasonably
be implied. Also, in the English case of R.v.Thompson24, sometimes it is not very plain that
words or conduct by investigating officers, amount to inducement or not and in such cases,
the benefit is normally resolved in favour of the accused person raising objection. In
Commissioner of Custom and Excise v. Power25 the Court held that “many cases of the so
called inducement have been valid that a reasonable man would have been influenced by
them.”
b. Denial of necessities of life, Undue hostility and Intimidation
Where an accused makes extra-judicial statement as a result of physical violence or torture,
inhuman or degrading treatment inflicted or a threat of such nature, such a confession is
involuntary and therefore inadmissible. It must be observed that this is an area most abused
by the police judging from experience of the number of objections raised by defence counsel
as to admissibility of confessional statements. One gets a definite impression that physical
abuse or threats of violence are more often than not employed by the police, especially in
serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter, armed robbery and rape.
2.3 Reforms under ACJA and ACJL
The Administration of Criminal Justice Act and the Administration of Criminal Justice Law
of Lagos State have innovatively added the requirement for a video coverage into the process
of how the statement of an accused person should be obtained. Furthermore, such statement
should only be taken in the presence of the Counsel to the accused or where he is
unrepresented, efforts should be made to obtain a Legal Practitioner from the Legal Aid
24
(1783) 1 Leach 291
25
Commisioner of Custom and Exise v. Power (1967) 51 CAR. 123
11

Council of Nigeria, Office of Public Defender or other agencies or non-governmental
agencies performing pro bono services.
In Charles v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria26 the Court reasoned as follows: “Sections
15(4) and 17(2) ACJA impose a duty on public functionaries to record electronically on
retrievable video compact disc or such other audio visual means, the Confessional Statement
of a suspect and to take statements of suspects in presence of persons set out in Section 17(2).
This position was also supported in Nnajiofor v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria27;
Oluwatoyin v. The State28. In the aforementioned cases, the Confessional Statement was
expunged from the record of appeal on basis of non-compliance with provisions of Section
15(4) and 17(2) ACJA, and confessions that deviate from the ACJA provisions are
considered involuntary and rendered inadmissible. Therefore, the decided authorities and
provisions of the ACJA and ACJL sought to remedy the existing challenges which existed in
taking confessional statement, however some court pronouncements have held contrary view
to this position.
2.4 Continuous gaps existing in Pre-ACJA and ACJL Regimes
On the contrary, in decisions of the Court of Appeal, it was held that notwithstanding non-
compliance with provisions of the ACJA or ACJL, confessional statement is admissible. The
Court reasoned that it is the Evidence Act that governs admissibility of any document not the
ACJA or ACJL. Lawal Shuaibu, J.C.A in Enang v. The State29 considered the decision in
26
(2018) LPELR-43922(CA)
27
(2018) LPELR-43925(CA)
28
(2018) LPELR-44441(CA)
29
(2019) LPELR-48682(CA)
12

support of this position which was upheld in Oguntoyinbo v. FRN30; Godwin Elewanna v.
The State31, Olisaeloka v. The State32. Therefore, the holding of the courts in this regard is
that the provision of the Evidence Act and not the ACJA or ACJL should govern
admissibility of confessional statements.
2.5 Conclusion
From the foregoing, it is clear that the reforms under the ACJA and ACJL have not fully
actualized owing to the controversy in court decisions. If the provisions of the ACJA are
fully upheld, it is mostly certain that the existing conflict and challenges faced in taking
confessional statements such as voluntariness and admissibility leading to trial within trial
delaying court processes will be absolutely laid to rest.
However these problems still exist and constitute the existing gap which this work seeks to
analyze further. In Mohammed v State (supra), the Ibadan Division of the Court of Appeal
corroborated the above proposition thus: Hence, the provisions on confessional statements
are very important most often in a criminal trial where the accused persons turn around to
state that the confessional statement made by them was done under duress, thereby delaying
the trial as a trial within the trial (TWT) is conducted. The ACJA has made it compulsory for
confessional statements to be recorded either by video or audio recording. When these
provisions are fully in operation, these measures will go a long way in helping the court to
dispense with Trial within Trial cases faster in other to get back to the proceeding proper and
also protect the accused from torture.
30
(2018) LPELR-45218(CA)
31
(2019) LPELR-47605 (CA)
32
(2017) LPELR-45255 (CA)
13

CHAPTER THREE
THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 2015
3.1 History of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015
The purpose of the Act is to ensure that the system of administration of criminal justice in
Nigeria promotes efficient management of criminal justice institutions, speedy dispensation
of justice, protection of the society from crime and protection of the rights and interests of
the suspect, the defendant and the victim33. The issue of poor administration of criminal
justice in Nigeria has been a recurring decimal. The government, which is constitutionally
charged with this obligation of putting in place a humanly and socially sensitive criminal
justice system, has introduced a variety of legislations through the years since 1960,
culminating in the extant legislative regime of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act,
2015 (ACJA). The virtual collapse of the criminal justice system in Nigeria led to the
enactment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act in 2015. In a rather comprehensive
manner, the Act has provided for the administration of criminal justice in the Courts of the
Federal Capital Territory and other federal Courts except Court martial which has separate
rules of procedure. Even though it is a Federal enactment, some of the provisions are of
general application throughout the country. In particular, arrests and detention of all criminal
suspects are regulated by the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
33
Administration of Justice Act 2015 s1(1)
14

3.2 Judicial Controversy on Confessional Statement under the ACJA and ACJL vis a
vis Evidence Act
Specifically, in Charles v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria34 the Court reasoned as
follows: “Sections 15(4) and 17(2) ACJA impose a duty on public functionaries to record
electronically on retrievable video compact disc or such other audio visual means, the
Confessional Statement of a suspect and to take statements of suspects in presence of persons
set out in Section 17(2). This position was also supported in Nnajiofor v. The Federal
Republic of Nigeria35; Oluwatoyin v. The State36. In the aforementioned cases, the
Confessional Statement was expunged from the record of appeal on basis of non-compliance
with provisions of Section 15(4) and 17(2) ACJA.
On the contrary, in decisions of the Court of Appeal, it was held that notwithstanding non-
compliance with provisions of the ACJA or ACJL, confessional statement is admissible. The
Court reasoned that it is the Evidence Act that governs admissibility of any document not the
ACJA or ACJL. Lawal Shuaibu, J.C.A in Enang v. The State37 considered the decision in
support of rejection and ruled as thus;
“In any event, the above decisions did not as well take cognizance of the fact that Evidence is
listed as Item 23 of the Exclusive Legislative List, Part 1, 2nd Schedule to the 1999
Constitution (as amended). Also, the Evidence Act being a specific Act on evidence including
admissibility takes precedence over the ACJA in matters of admissibility.” This position was
also supported in Oguntoyinbo v. FRN38; Godwin Elewanna v. The State39.
34
(2018) LPELR-43922(CA)
35
(2018) LPELR-43925(CA)
36
(2018) LPELR-44441(CA)
37
(2019) LPELR-48682(CA)
38
(2018) LPELR-45218(CA)
15

Therefore, the provision that governs admissibility of a Confessional Statement is Section 29
Evidence Act. The same court while considering Section 9(3) ACJL, Per Ogakwu, J.C.A in
Emeka Ike v. The State of Lagos40 was quite emphatic as follows;
“The matter does not end there. It remains to examine if a Confessional Statement that
satisfies admissibility requirements under Section 29 Evidence Act, will be rendered
inadmissible if no video recording of its making and taking is produced at trial upon an
objection being raised as to its voluntariness. Without a doubt, the enactment dealing with
the admissibility in evidence of a Confessional Statement is Section 29 Evidence Act. It
provides circumstances in which a Confessional Statement shall not be allowed to be given in
evidence.”
Similarly, in Olisaeloka v. The State41, Obaseki-Adejumo, J.C.A. in his concurring
judgment also noted that;
“I shall make some remarks just for emphasis. Section 9 (3) ACJL is in no way meant to take
the place of provisions of Section 29 Evidence Act. The provision will not by itself render
inadmissible a Confessional Statement. It provides for procedure that should be complied
with in taking of Confessional Statement of an accused person at the pre-trial stage.”
The ACJA or ACJL provisions will only come into play if the defendant‟s confessional
statement is challenged on the premise of involuntariness. In this wise, the prosecution may
produce a recorded video of the defendant making his statement and lead evidence that it was
taken in the presence of his legal practitioner or any other officer, as specified in Section 17
39
(2019) LPELR-47605 (CA)
40
(2019) LPELR-47712(CA)
41
(2017) LPELR-45255 (CA)
16

(2) ACJA. The Court of Appeal came to the same conclusion Per Ogakwu, J.C.A in Emeka
Ike v. The State Of Lagos (Supra) wherein he admonished as follows:
“So it is only if during trial when the Confessional Statement is sought to be tendered and an
objection is raised that it was not made voluntarily that the stipulation requiring video
recording may be produced at trial. Where no objection is raised, the prosecution is not
obligated to produce video recording, since the Confessional Statement is not inherently
inadmissible.”
Furthermore, Ogakwu, J.C.A, in Olisaeloka v. The State (Supra) had this to say;
“I shudder to think that it could be the intendment of the law that once there is no video
recording of making of a Confessional Statement and it was not made in the presence of a
Legal Practitioner of the choice of an accused person, such a statement will be inadmissible.
No, It cannot be!”
In line with the foregoing, the Supreme Court Per Obaseki JSC, in Coparate Jonathan
Draws v. The State (supra), outlined six questions which a Judge must ask himself before
attaching weight to the Confessional Statement of an accused person. Thus, if the
Confessional Statement fails to pass the test, no conviction can properly be founded on it and
if any is founded on it, on appeal it will be hard to sustain. The proper time of challenging
admissibility of Confessional Statement given to the police during investigation, is when
such evidence is sought to be tendered in evidenced by the prosecution and not later.
Although, Section 31 of the Evidence Act 2011 went further to state when a confession that
was considered relevant cannot be vitiated by the way it was obtained. It hence clarifies that
a confession that is relevant will not become irrelevant by the fact that it was made under a
17

promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practiced on the defendant for the
purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions
which he need not have answered, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to
make such statement and that evidence of it might be given.
The rule is that when a Counsel fails to raise the objection when a confessional statement is
tendered, the accused can‟t raise it again. The 2011 Evidence Act makes the Learned Trial
Judge to be more actively involved in the admission of a statement from the very beginning.
The provision of Section 29(2)(b):
In consequence of anything said or done which was likely in the circumstance existing at the
time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in such consequence,
the court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far
as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession
(notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained in a manner contrary to the provisions
of this section.
In any proceeding where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by
a defendant, the court may of its own motion require the prosecution, as a condition of
allowing it to do so to prove that the confession was not obtained as mentioned in either
subsection (2)(a)(b) of this section. It was affirmed in Benjamin Oyakhire v. State42 where
the court held that the settled principle is that a statement made by an accused person to the
police may amount to admission of the offence for which the he his charged and such
42
LPELR (2006) SC 188/2000
18

statement and the facts admitted therein are admissible only against the maker of the
statement and not against a co-accused.
3.3 Meaning and Concept of Confessional Statements
Black‟s Law Dictionary defines confession as “a criminal suspect‟s oral or written
acknowledgement of guilt, often including details about the crime”.43 It is also defined as an
acknowledgment in express words, by the accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the main
fact charged or of some essential part of it.44 It is also defined as; an admission, in whole or
in part, made by an accused person of his guilt, which at common law was made admissible
if made voluntarily.45 The Evidence Act 2011 defines confession as follows: “A confession is
an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the
inference that he committed the crime”.46 The Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong, in
their Report on “Confession Statements and their Admissibility in Criminal Proceedings”,
equally described confession in these clearer terms: “When, in the course of an investigation
into a criminal offence, a suspect has made a statement to the police tending to show that he
has committed the offence, the statement is known as a confession”.47
According to Black‟s Law Dictionary, the distinction between admissions in criminal cases
and confessions by the accused is the distinction in effect between admissions of fact from
which the guilt of the accused may be inferred by the jury and the express admission of guilt
itself.48 In some cases, silence may amount to an admission, especially when both parties are
speaking or are simply on the same and even terms i.e. no one occupies a superior position in
43
Bryan A. Garner (ed.), Black‟s Law Dictionary, 8th edn., West Publishing Company, U.S.A, 2004, 317
44
Ibid (n 20)
45
Elizabeth A. Martin (ed.), A Dictionary of Law, 3rd edn., Oxford University Press, New York, 1996, 84
46
Evidence Act 2011 s28
47
Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong, “Confession Statements and their Admissibility in Criminal
Proceedings” <www.hkreform.gov.hk/en/docs/radmissibility>Accessed 6 June 2018
48
Bryan Garner (Editor in Chief), 8th edn., 254
19

relation to the other. In determining the guilt of a suspect, such a person is entitled to refrain
from answering a question put to him for the purpose of discovering whether he has
committed the criminal offence or not.49 In the case of Samuel Ayo Omoju v. The Federal
Republic of Nigeria,50 where the accused, a Pastor was arraigned and charged with exporting
1.1 kg of cocaine worth ten thousand US Dollars, the Supreme Court acknowledged the
following statement of the accused person as a true confessional statement. In R v Hulbert51
it was held that the accused could confess, on a charge of handling stolen goods, that she
received the goods, knowing or believing them to be stolen, but she could not confess that
they were stolen, since this was something that she had merely been told.
3.4 Retraction of Confessional Statement
Retraction of confessional statement was described in the case of Daniel Nsofor v. The
State52: The court held that it is well settled law that where the objection to the admissibility
of accused statement is merely that it was not read over to him and on the ground that he did
not make it but not that it was not voluntarily made, he was coerced or induced to make it.
Furthermore the court listed ways it may arise:
 Where the statement is not signed
 Where the accused denies that the signature belong to him
 Where the accused alleges that the statement was not properly or accurately recorded
 Where the accused alleges that he did not make the oral confession.
49
Alan T. Principles of Evidence 2nd edn., Cavendish Publishing Ltd London 2000, 257
50
Samuel Omoju v The Federal Republic of Nigeria (2008) in Tony Ukam, Supreme Court Cases: Through the
Eyes and Lips of Niki Tobi, Orak-Wise Publications, Calabar, 2010, 649
51
(1979) 69 Cr App R 243
52
LPELR [2004] S.C 218/2002
20

The question is what happens when the accused raises the objection?
Firstly, the court held that where an accused wishes to resile out of his confessional statement
he must establish that his earlier statement cannot be true or correct by showing the
following53;
 That he was not correctly recorded
 That he in fact did not make the statement
 That he was unsettled in mind at the time he made the statement.
3.5 Procedure for Obtaining Confessional Statements
The burden of proving that a confession was voluntarily made rests on the prosecution in
criminal proceedings. The burden involves the same standard as the proof of guilt, i.e.
beyond reasonable doubt. In the view of an author, the truth of the confession is irrelevant, so
long as it proceeds voluntarily from the maker and no law or rule laid down is breached.54
But in practice, in Nigeria, a confession will only support a conviction without corroboration
so long as the court is satisfied of its truth.55 Where the issue is one of identity, where an
accused by his confession has identified himself, there is no need for any further
identification parade.56 Where the accused denies making the extra judicial statement, the
court would look for some independent evidence, that is to say, evidence outside the
confession to make the confession probable. The fact that the appellant took the earliest
opportunity to deny having made the statement may lend weight to his denial but it is not in
itself a reason for ignoring the statement. The proper time to object to it is at its point of
53
See Agaba, J. A. (2015). Practical Approach to Criminal Litigation in Nigeria. (3rd ed.). Abuja, Nigeria:
Bloom Legal Temple Publishers. Pg 79
54
Alan T. Principles of Evidence 2nd edn., Cavendish Publishing Ltd London 2000, 234
55
Galadima v. State 2012 Vol. 12 MJSC Pt. III 190
56
Archibong v. State (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt 855)
21

being tendered.57 Under the Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2011,
confessional statements are required to be video recorded to avoid retraction by the
defendant, often leading to a trial-within-a-trial which occasions undue delays in the
administration of criminal justice.58 Also, Under section 15(4) of the ACJA 2015; it provides
that, “Where a suspect who is arrested with or without a warrant volunteers to make a
confessional statement, the police officer shall ensure that the making and taking of the
statement shall be in writing and may be recorded electronically on a retrievable video
compact disc or such other audio visual means”. This means that electronic recording of a
confession is allowed as a procedure for obtaining confessional statements.
Having satisfied the conditions for its admission and the weight to be attached to it, it is the
best and strongest evidence possible, short of eye witness account. Where the confession is
found to have been made voluntarily and it is true but inconsistent with the accused‟s
evidence in court, it is safe to convict59. Where the accused confesses, does not object to the
statement being tendered and admitted in evidence and did not recant in his testimony in
court, there is no need to look for evidence outside the confession any more. After all, every
accused person is in the best position to say if he committed the offence of which he is
accused.60 An accused can be convicted on his confessional statement alone but it is desirable
that some other evidence consistent with the confession is produced. Apart from voluntary
confessions, a plea of guilty is also an excellent way to secure the conviction of an accused
without the need for corroboration.61 Corroborative evidence may be discovered before or
57
Haruna v AGF 2012 Vol. 3 MJSC Pt II 45
58
Falana F. “how a defective Criminal Justice System freed Al-Mustapha” The Punch, Monday, August 5th,
2013 at page 82 gotten from <http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_21_
[Special_Issue_December_2013]/31.pdf> accessed 6 June 2018
59
Mumuni v State (1975) 6 SC page 79
60
Bassey V State 2012 Vol. 3-4 MJSC 177
61
Timothy v. FRN 2012 Vol. 5-7 Pt. 1 MJSC 98, Adesina v. State 2012 Vol. 6-7 Pt. II MJSC 80
22

after the making of the confession. Where the prosecution has successfully established facts,
which are stated in a confessional statement, it would be a good ground to presume that the
confessional statement was voluntary.62 Confessions must be accepted as a whole.
3.6 Analysis of Confessional Statements
The denial or retraction of a confession is a matter to be taken into consideration to decide
what weight to be attached to the confession.63 A confessional statement that is free, direct,
positive and voluntary is enough to ground a conviction. Oseni v State (Supra), in this case,
the appellant had expressly stated the motive for the killing. 64 A court only needs
corroboration when there is any doubt as to the voluntariness or the opportunity of making
such statement65. For a full admission of guilt to qualify as a confession, it must be direct and
positive as far as the charges are concerned. Hence it was held in the case of Gbadamosi v
The State (Supra), that for a statement of the accused to constitute a confession, the
statement must admit or acknowledge that the maker of the statement committed the offences
for which he is charged and in so doing be clear, precise and unequivocal. 66 In other words, a
statement made under caution by the accused person becomes confessional once it admits the
charge or creates the impression that the accused committed the offence charged.
Some parts of it cannot be accepted while others are rejected. Where an extra judicial
confession was the result of the consumption of liquor by the accused and the witnesses fail
to reproduce the confession in the exact words of the accused or in even the words as nearly
62
State v. Mohd. Afzal (2003) 107 DLT 385 (DEL)
63
Dibie v. State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt 1038) 30
64
Oseni V State 2012 Vol 2 MJSC Pt. II 123
65
Osung v. State 2012 Vol. 6-7 Pt. II MJSC 1
66
Gbadamosi v The State (1992) 11/12 SCJN (Pt. 2) 268 at 276
23

as possible it should be excluded.67 A mere statement of the accused before the court that he
is innocent would not amount to a retraction of an extra judicial confession.68 The amount of
credibility that will be attached to a retracted confession depends on the circumstances of
each particular case. The court has the discretion to admit or exclude a confessional
statement even if satisfied of its truth, that is, where the prosecution fails to prove its
voluntariness. Usually, in English cases, corroborative evidence usually exists in addition to
confessions, to justify a conviction of the prisoner. In the US, a confession is admissible if
the judge deems it to have been made voluntarily. Further, the prisoner‟s confession, when
the corpus delicti is not otherwise proved has been held insufficient to warrant his conviction
and this opinion best accord with the humanity of the criminal law, and with the great degree
of caution applied in receiving and weighing the evidence of confessions in other cases. 69 In
Brown v Mississippi70 it was held to the effect that, firstly, exclusion of involuntary
confessions will deter police misconduct; secondly, that a confession should be freely made
by a rational person, and lastly, that confessions obtained with duress are inherently
unreliable.
Sometimes, there are allegations of inducement, threats or duress in the making of a
confessional statement under investigation. A confessional statement does not become
inadmissible merely because the accused denies having made it. If the voluntariness is in
issue, the trial court has a duty to conduct a trial within a trial to determine the voluntariness
of the confession. Proof, by the prosecution, of the voluntariness of the confession is beyond
67
C.K. Raveendran v. State of Kerala (2000) 1 SCC 225 (SC)
68
Pakkirisamy v. State of T. N., 1998 Cri LJ 89 (SC).
69
R v. Eldrige 1821 R & R 440
70
297 US 278 (1936)
24

reasonable doubt before the confession can be admitted71. According to Obaseki, JSC,72 it
has long been established as a positive rule of law which has found a healthy place in our
statutes ... that no statement by an accused is admissible in evidence against him unless it is
shown by the prosecution to have been a voluntary statement. In the opinion of the Supreme
Court, the trial judge was right to dismiss this aspect of the defense‟s case as an afterthought.
It was too late to raise the issue on appeal.
3.7 Conclusion
The paper further points out the approach adopted by our courts in admitting or rejecting a
confession obtained by the police from the accused person in breach of Section 29 of
Evidence Act and other rules governing the taking of statements from suspects. The paper
stresses the fact that for a confession to be free and voluntary such a confession must not be
influenced by hope or fear in the form of a threat, promise or inducement and that any such
statement of confession by a suspect will be held to be involuntary.
However, the fact that it was not recorded in the language it was made would not render it
inadmissible. Finally, I advocate that Section 31 of Evidence Act which makes the accused
person criminally responsible for the statement he made through oppression, use of force, or
threat of violence whether or not amounting to torture admissible against him is unacceptable
and is in conflict with Section 29 (5) of the same Act and therefore should be amended to
give an accused person a fair trial.
71
Bright V the State 2012 Vol. 1-2 MJSC 35
72
Corporal Jonah Dawa & anor V. The State (1980) 8-11 SC 236 at 258
25

CHAPTER FOUR
ENFORCEMENT OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS IN OTHER
JURISDICTIONS
4.1 Confessional Statement under Indian Evidence Act, 1872
In India, recognizing the fact that the police officers often extract confessions from suspect in
a manner as would render the confession unreliable, a statement made by a suspect to police
officers is generally not admissible in evidence. According to Sakar;
“Confessional statements by the accused to the police are absolutely excluded under
S.25, Evidence Act. All statements by the witnesses to the police are also shut out by
S.162 except for the strictly limited purpose of contradiction of prosecution witnesses
during trial. These rules of law have the origin because of the unreliability of the police
and their tendency to adopt third degree methods of extorting statements.”73
Police officers are therefore by necessary implication excluded from extracting confessional
statement from an accused person by virtue of Sections 25 and 162 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1873. Hence it was recommended by Mack J in Sitramayya v R74 as follows:
“the police would do well to take the accused person before a Magistrate whether he makes a
confession or not, and have a statement recorded under S.164, so that the accused person can
be axed to one explanation when placed in a position which becomes incriminating unless he
can offer a satisfactory explanation for his behavior”
However, because of the importance of confessions, ample provision was made in the Indian
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1975 (as Amended) for a fool proof process of extracting
73
Sakar, The law of Criminal Procedure, 9th Edition, Vol. 1, page 634, LexisNexis Butterworths
74
AIR 1951 M 61, 63
26

such statement which is to be done before a Magistrate. To this effect Section 164 (1) and
(2) of the Indian C.P Code provides as follows:
(1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has
jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an
investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any
time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial: Provided that no confession
shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred
under any law for the time being in force.
(2) The Magistrate shall, before recording such confession, explain to the person making it
that he is not bound to make a confession and that if he does so, it may be used as evidence
against him; and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon
questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily.
By the foregoing provisions confessional statement of a suspect is usually recorded before a
Magistrate who prior to recording same must have cautioned the suspect accordingly and
observed his demeanour to decipher whether the confession is not motivated by any form of
oppression or inducement.75 The accused person is also to be brought before the magistrate
unfettered. The Police or other persons who may have any influence or hold over the accused
are ordered out so that a free atmosphere may be created and all fear and suspicion may be
allayed. In the case of Tandra Rani v State of A.P,76 statement of an accused though
recorded in the presence of a Magistrate but not in the manner provided under Section 164
was held not admissible in evidence.
75
Lalhirpuria v State of Mizorum 2004(3) Gau LR 196.
76
2001 CrLJ 4048
27

The suspect must also be taken before the Magistrate within three months of an indication of
willingness to make a confession and when the offence is still fresh in his mind. Section 164
(4) of the Indian C.P Code, provides that the Magistrate is to make a memorandum at the foot
of the statement that he has duly administered caution on the suspect. The memorandum
accompanies the confessional statement when sought to be tendered (this is akin to the
Certificate of Identification required under Section 84 of the Nigerian Evidence Act. Where
the memorandum does not accompany the confessional statement or does not contain the
proper endorsement, the confessional statement will not be admitted in evidence.
As a further safeguard to ensure that confession is voluntary, Section 164(3) prohibits a
remand to police custody of a person expressing unwillingness to make confession. Also,
after making a confessional statement, the accused is sent to the judicial lock-up and on no
account will the accused be returned to police custody. The provisions of Section 164 of the
Indian C.P Code are therefore mandatorily observed in India such that where the police
officers fail to comply with the procedure or even the Magistrate fails in the obligation to
record the confession in the manner prescribed, the confessional statement will not be
admitted in evidence. By the strict compliance placed on Section 164 of the Indian C.P
Code, the need for the conduct of trial within trial is completely obviated and it in fact has no
place in the legal jurisprudence of India as far ago as early 19th Century. Confession plays a
pivotal role in the pursuit of a criminal trial, the foundation of which rests on truth and
accuracy. It is an acknowledgement of guilt by the accused. The truthfulness of the
confession runs in favour of the accused, as the logical fallout dictates that it flows from the
strongest sense of guilt, thus, must be given the highest credit.77 Hence, confession plays a
77
Arya & Shivshankar, Study on Confession under Indian Evidence Act, 1872, I NTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS ISSN: 1314-3395, Volume 120, No. 5, 2018
28

decisive role in the determination of the trial. A confession could take many forms viz.,
judicial confession, retracted, and an extra-judicial confession.78 Thus, it is indispensable for
the courts to examine the admissibility of such confession to rule out the possibility of
smeary evidence being presented in the court of law79.
The Indian Evidence Act deals with confession from Section 24 to Section 30. Further,
confession is dealt under Section 164, 281 and 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. A confession is an admission or acknowledgment of the offence by the accused.
Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act refers to the relevancy of a confession and it is here
that the term confession appears for the first time in the Act.80 Therefore, confession implies
acceptance of statements proving the guilt of the accused and it takes many forms viz.,
judicial confession, extra-judicial confession, formal and retracted confession. As per
Section 24 if the court is of the view that the confession has been made by inducement,
threat, or promise concerning the charge that the accused person faces to having some
advantage to escape evil of a temporal nature vis-a-vis proceedings against him at the
instance of a person in authority or sufficient, then such confession would be irrelevant in the
court of law.
Primarily it is regarded that judicial confession could be relied upon for a conviction whereas
it is not prudent to base conviction moving from extra-judicial confession as laid down in
Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab81. The rationale behind this jurisprudence lies in the
rationale that extra-judicial confession requires support of other supporting evidence as held
78
Pakala Narayan vs. Emperor, (1939) 41 BOMLR 428
79
Palvinder vs. State of Punjab, 1952 SCR 94
80
Shaheen Banoo, Analysing Section 164 of CrPC vis-a-vis Smt Seema Devi vs. State of U.P. 2016, (March 27,
2020), https://www.juscholars.com/post/analysing-section-164-of-crpc-vis-a-vis-smt-seema-devi-vs-state-of-u-
p-2016
81
AIR 1996 SC 607
29

in Pakkirisamy vs. State of TN82. However, reliance can be placed on judicial confession as
proof of guilt if the same is made voluntarily and appears true to the court as held by the
Supreme Court in Narayan Singh & Ors vs. State Of M.P.83
4.2 Confessional Statement in the United Kingdom:
The provision of our Section 29 of the Evidence Act, 2011appears to have been extracted
from the provision of Section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 (PACE)
notwithstanding that a jury system does not exist in Nigeria. Section 76(2) of PACE, 1984
provides as follows:
“If, in any proceeding where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made
by an accused person, it is represented to the Court that the confession was or may have been
obtained –
(a) by oppression of the person who made it; or
(b) in consequence of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing
at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in
consequence thereof. The court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence
against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable
doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained as
aforesaid”
Interestingly, in the United Kingdom, though a voir dire proceeding is still conducted in the
crown courts on account of the jury system but recourse is rarely had to same because by the
criminal procedure in the United Kingdom, preliminary hearings are usually conducted prior
to trial for the purpose of determining objections which the defendant may have to the
82
AIR 2011 SC 2283
83
1985 AIR 1678
30

evidence of the prosecution (such as confessional statements). The procedure applicable in
the United Kingdom is sufficiently explained in Blackstone’s Criminal Practice55.
Summarily put, the procedure is as follows:
(a.) Defence counsel informs prosecution counsel of the objection before the latter opens
his case to the jury.
(b.) At the point which the admissibility falls to be considered, the jury will withdraw to
allow the matter to be resolved by the judge alone.
(c.) If the admissibility of the disputed evidence raises collateral factual issues as to how
it was obtained, evidence will be adduced before the judge in the absence of the jury.
This is known as trial on „the voir dire‟. Both prosecution and defence are entitled to
call witnesses at this stage.
Worthy also of consideration from the procedure in the United Kingdom is the possibility of
(1) determining the issue of the voluntariness of the confessional statement without leading
oral evidence or a voir dire proceeding as it were and (2) determining both the admissibility
and the trial proper together at judgment.
4.3 Evidential Value of Confessional Statements
It is fundamental to note that a confessional statement made before a magistrate by the
accused is considered as a piece of good evidence and conviction can proceed on the basis of
such a confessional statement. However, it is to be noted that the same could be used against
the accused for that would be sufficient to support the conviction. Thus, the confession given
by an accused person is regarded as substantive evidence upon which conviction can happen.
A confession is substantive evidence against its maker, so that it has been duly recorded and
suffers from no legal infirmity, it would suffice to convict the accused who made the
31

confession, though as a matter of prudence, the Court expects some corroboration before
acting upon it. Even then slight corroboration would suffice. But before acting upon a
confession, the Court must be satisfied that it is voluntary and true.
The jurisprudence with regards to the evidentiary value of conviction lays down that a
conviction could only proceed on confession when such a confession can be proved to be
made voluntarily and is entirely true; coupled with general corroboration to substantiate the
evidence.
Furthermore, extra-judicial confession is not regarded as a strong piece of evidence,
therefore, requires great caution from the courts as held in State of Karnataka v. A.B.Nag
Raj.84 It requires corroboration which connects the accused with the crime in question.85
Additionally, it is not safe to base the conviction on a retracted confession if the same isn't
corroborated by trustworthy evidence. Practice and prudence dictate that retracted confession
shouldn't be made the basis of the conviction unless sufficiently corroborated.
4.4 Statements of the Accused made before the Police
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that statements made to a police officer shall
not be considered as a confession vis-a-vis proving of the confession against the person
accused as held in Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra86. Therefore, Section 26 acts as the safety
valve that protects the accused because such confession is not admissible as evidence until
provided to prove the guilt of the accused.87 It also provides that confessions made to the
84
(1964) 64 C.N.L.R. 265 (P.C.)
85
John Getreu, Evidence: Admissibility of Confession, W ILLIAM & MARY REVIEW OF VIRGINIA LAW, Volume
1 Issue 2
86
(1964) 64 C.N.L.R. 265 (P.C.)
87
Analysis Of Various Aspect Of Law Relating To Confessions, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL
DEVELOPMENTS AND ALLIED ISSUES, 2017
32

police officer could be admissible if it is duly recorded in the immediate presence of a
magistrate.88 However, if the statements are not confessional and does not substantially
admits all the facts of the offence, then such a statement would be inadmissible if made to a
policeman.
Therefore, the conundrum arises how far can the statements of the accused made before the
police be used against the accused? Section 27 comes into play here which provides that any
fact which is discovered in consequence of information given by the accused to the police
officer provided that the discovered fact does not relate with the information provided may
be proved. In Pandu Rang Kallu Patil v. State of Maharashtra89 it was held that if the
statement made is distinctly related to the discovery of facts then Section 27 would apply
notwithstanding Section 25 and Section 26.
The mere presence of the policeman should not have any effect. Where the confession is
being given to someone else and the policeman is only casually present and overhears it that
will not destroy the voluntary nature of the confession. But where that person is a secret
agent of the police deputed for the very purpose of receiving a confession, it will suffer from
blemish of being a confession to police. The object of Section 26 of the Evidence Act is to
prevent the abuse of their powers by the police, and hence confessions made by accused
persons while in custody of police cannot be proved against them unless made in presence of
a magistrate. The custody of a police officer provides easy opportunity of coercion for
extorting confession obtained from accused persons through any undue influence being
received in evidence against him.

88
Jiby J., Making Confessions in Police Custody Admissible as Evidence is a Terrible Idea, (March 28, 2020),
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/jibber-jabber/making-confessions-in-police-custody-admissible-as-
evidence-is-a-terrible-idea
89
AIR 1966 SC 119
33

Before the statement of the accused could be proved, somebody, such a sub-inspector, must
depose that in consequence of the given information given by the accused, some facts were
discovered. The fact discovered must be a relevant fact, that is, to say it must relate to the
commission of the crime in question. In Pandu Rang Kallu Patil v. State of Maharashtra
(supra), S.C it was held by Supreme Court that Section 27 of evidence act was enacted as
proviso to the provisions of sections of Sections 25 and 26, which imposed a complete ban
on admissibility of any confession made by accused either to police or at any one while in
police custody. Nonetheless, the ban would be lifted if the statement is distinctly related to
discovery of facts. The object of making provision in Section 27 was to permit a certain
portion of statement made by an accused to Police Officer admissible in evidence whether or
not such statement is confessional or non-confessional.
Section 28 provides that if there is inducement, threat or promise given to the accused in
order to obtain confession of guilt from him but the confession is made after the impression
caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the court been fully
removed, the confession will be relevant becomes free and voluntary. Section 29 lays down
that if a confession is relevant, that is, if it is not excluded from being proved by any other
provision of Indian Evidence Act, it cannot be relevant if it was taken from the accused by: 1.
Giving him promise of secrecy; 2. By deceiving him; 3. When he was drunk, or; 4. Because
it was made clear in answer to question which he need not have answered, or because no
warning was given that he was not bound to say anything and that whatever he will state will
be used against him.
34

4.5 Proof of Judicial Confessional Statement
Under section 80 of Evidence Act a confession recorded by the magistrate according to law
shall be presumed to be genuine. It is enough if the recorded judicial confession is filed
before the court. It is not necessary to examine the magistrate who recorded it to prove the
confession. But the identity of the accused has to be proved. In Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of
Bihar90, it has been held that, “A statement contained in the FIR furnished by one of the
accused in the case cannot, in any manner, be used against another accused. Even as against
the accused who made it, the statement cannot be used if it is inculpatory in nature nor can it
be used for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction unless its maker offers himself as a
witness in the trial. The very limited use of it is as an admission under Sec.21 of the Evidence
Act against its maker alone unless the admission does not amount to confession.” In the case
of Jagta V. State91, it has been held that evidence of Extra-judicial confession in the very
nature of things is a weak piece of evidence. However, it is not open to any court to start with
a presumption that extrajudicial confession is weak type of evidence. Admissibility of the
confession is a question for the Judge. Upon a consideration of the evidence and
circumstances, the Judge decides on the voluntariness or otherwise of the confession. If his
answer is in negative, the confession is excluded as a matter of law. If his answer is
affirmative, the confession is admissible. The Judge determines admissibility of the
confession whether confession is true and of how much weight and value. If he is satisfied
from the evidence that it is true he acts upon it. Confession made before the police leading to
discovery of the facts is admissible, as per Sec.27 of the Evidence Act. When accused retract
from confession it is called retracted confession. Such confession can be legal base of the
90
AIR 1966 SC 119
91
AIR 1974 SC 1545
35

conviction, if the court is satisfied that it was true and so voluntarily made. But ordinarily
corroboration is required.
The law in regard to extrajudicial confessions may be stated thus: An extrajudicial
confession, if voluntary, can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence in
convicting the accused. In examining the value of an extrajudicial confession one factor is
whether the accused was a free man while making his confession. The second factor is that
the value of the confession as an evidence on veracity of the witness to whom it was made. A
conviction can be founded on a extrajudicial confession. It should be clear, specific and
unambiguous. But it should not be expected that the witness, in order to establish his
credibility, should be able to reproduce the statement in its word for word original version.
As a matter of law corroboration is not necessary at all as a general rule a retracted
confession requires corroboration of some kind; but the amount of corroboration which the
Court will look for depends on the circumstances of each case. It has been held about a
judicial confession that though it is retracted by the maker, it was not a ground to presume
that it was tainted. The rules regarding a confession, which is subsequently retracted, are; (1)
that a confession is not to be regarded as involuntary merely because it is retracted, (2) as
against the maker of the confession, the retracted confession may form the basis of a
conviction if it is believed to be true and voluntarily made, (3) as against the co-accused, both
prudence and caution require the Court not to rely on a retracted confession without
independent corroborative evidence and (4) retraction should not be ambiguous, vague or
imaginary.
36

4.6 Conclusion and Comparison of Indian Model on Confessional Statement with
Nigeria
The researcher is of the view that there must be adequate rules to ensure that admission of
confession as an evidence should only be permitted if it is accurate and reliable and the same
is not obtained by the mistreatment of the accused. Such measures are necessitated to
safeguard the rights of the accused to obtain reliable statements. The researcher opines that
there exists a conundrum vis-a-vis presumption of the evidentiary value of extra-judicial
confession having a plethora of varying decisions by the court, thus a settled law on the
subject is the need of the hour. Therefore, the researcher favours the view where
jurisprudence dictates permission of exclusion of confessions obtained by oppression as duly
analysed above. The rationale behind favouring this rule aligns with recognition of the rights
of the accused to ensure zero police brutality and torture to extract a confession by deploying
inhumane & unfair means which often gets unreported under the garb of exercise of
authority.
37

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION, AND CONCLUSION
5.1 SUMMARY
Throughout this study, the emphasis has been on the role of the Administration of the
Criminal Justice Act 2015 in obtaining confessional statements. It is deducible and glaring
that a Confessional Statement is important in prosecuting an accused person. Hence, to
achieve justice and edge out injustice, it is only right that the process of obtaining
confessional statements be free from the damning effect of the threat of violence and other
vices discussed throughout this work. It is evident that in order to create an atmosphere for
justice to thrive especially in the early stages of investigations before a prosecution, our
police officers need to be educated and trained properly on the relevant processes as they
affect criminal trials. The Nigerian criminal administration of justice system is besieged by a
host of challenges among which are poor and ineffective criminal investigations. On the
other hand, criminal investigations in Nigeria as having been shown in this study are also
daunted by a legion of challenges.
5.2 RECOMMENDATION
According to Saint Augustine, “Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong
even if everyone is doing it. A wrong can never become a right by longevity of
existence”. This point cannot be overemphasized as the Courts have consistently admonished
that litigation is not a game of hide and seek. See the cases of Chedi v AG Federation92 and
92
(2008) 1 NWLR (pt. 1067) 166 at 182, paras.
38

Chief of Air Staff v. Iyen.93 This admonition applies to criminal cases in same manner as it
applies to civil proceedings. The Evidence Act can also be amended to include innovations
obtainable in India as well as under the ACJA and lay to rest existing controversies and
delay.
(a .) Judicial Activism:
Our courts have been able to salvage situations in which there has been lacuna in our laws in
the past through judicial activism. The decisions of the Courts through judicial activism often
results in legislative amendments codifying the position advanced by the Courts. Such
scenario played out in respect of the admissibility of computer generated evidence under the
old Evidence Act which makes no provision for computer generated documents. In the case
of FRN v Femi Fani Kayode94 the Court of Appeal employed judicial activism and
construed the definition of documents in the old Evidence Act to include computer generated
evidence. Also in Amaechi v INEC95, to prevent a situation where a wrong will be allowed
to exist without a remedy, judicial
activism was employed to declare the real winner of a political party primary election as the
Governor of Rivers State even though he did not participate in the general election. In similar
manner, judicial activism is required to prevent further delay of criminal cases by the conduct
of trial within trial. The judicial activism should be employed as follows:
1. Ensure strict compliance with sections 15(4) and 17 of the ACJA and section 9 (3) of
the ACJL: The Court must make it mandatory that all confessional statements to be
tendered in evidence must have attached to it and forwarded along with the proof of
93
(2005) 6 NWLR (pt.922) 496
94
(2010) 14 NWLR (Pt 1214) 481
95
(2008)5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) p. 227
39

evidence video recording of how the confessions were extracted from the accused person
or at best an affidavit in lieu of the video recording where not available. This will greatly
reduce the possibility of tenuous objections to the voluntariness of confessional
statements.
2. Defence Counsel should be mandated to indicate their objections to confessional
statements before Trial: Whilst it appears that there is no law sanctioning this practice it
may be employed as a Case Management direction by the judge to ensure a smooth trial
without the rigors of suspending the main trial for the purpose of conducting a mini trial.
The direction in this regard can be made by a judge to which the case is assigned
pursuant to the provision of section 29(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011. By this practice, it
is immaterial whether objection has been raised by the defence counsel but will in
essence allow for the admission of the confessional statement provisionally whilst the
defence will lead evidence to indicate that the confession was involuntarily made and the
judge will in its judgment either expunge the voluntary statement if found to be
involuntary or rely on same where found to be voluntary. Prejudice or bias that may
result from the conduct of trial within trial may be prevented this way. The above can
also be achieved by a practice direction.
3. Amendment of Section 29 of the Evidence Act, 2011 Section 29 of the Evidence Act,
2011 should be amended to proscribe the admissibility of confessional statements
recorded by police officers. This is necessary because it has become practically
impossible to ensure that law enforcement agents in Nigeria comply with the provisions
of the ACJA and ACJL in extracting confessional statements from suspects. Magistrates
could be empowered to allow defendants make Confessional Statements before them.
40

This was the same scenario that played out in India and resulted in the complete
proscription of confessional statements recorded by police officers.
5.3 CONCLUSION
On the whole, the ACJA is groundbreaking and an elegant piece of legislation. Some of the
issues identified in this work which plagued criminal proceedings under the CPA and CPC
can be tackled if all stakeholders collaborate and efficiently discharge their function as
defined by law to enable the criminal justice sector in Nigeria regain the confidence of the
people. It is further suggested that there is a need for stakeholders‟ workshops and training to
be held to sensitize all, not only on the innovations introduced by the Act but to also fashion
out measures for the effective implementation of this new law. The NBA, the Police, Law
officers in the State Ministry of Justice, the Correctional officials and even teachers of
criminal procedure law must collaborate to give effect to the true spirit of this law. Also, the
training, retraining, and repackaging coupled with improved condition of service and welfare
will enhance effectiveness and efficiency in police performance, and this will have a
spillover effect in their conduct of the criminal prosecution and all other functions.
41

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Aguda T.A. “Law of Evidence” 4th edition (Spectrum Books Limited Ibadan, 1999)
Akintola A.L. and Adedeji A.A. Nigerian Law of Evidence” (University Press Plc Ibadan
2006)
Alan T. Principles of Evidence 2nd Edition Cavendish Publishing Ltd London 2000
Anyogu, Z.C. Evidential Perspectives on the Defense of Alibi in Nigeria, Enugu, 2006
Bryan A. G. (ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, West Publishing Company, U.S.A,
2004,
Eche A. C. “The Nigerian Law of Evidence” (Ibadan: Malthouse Law Books, 1997)
Elizabeth A. M. (ed.), a Dictionary of Law, 3rd Edition, Oxford University Press, New York,
1996
Maguire, E, Criminal Investigation and Crime Control, 2008, Criminal investigation and
crime control, In: Newburn, Tim ed. Handbook of policing, Cullompton, Devon:
Willan Publishing
Nokes “An Introduction to Evidence” 4th edition (Oxford University Press, 1999)
Nwadialo F., “Modern Nigeria Law of Evidence” (Benin City: Ethiope Publishing
Corporation, 1981)
Peter M. “A Practical Approach to Evidence” 4th edition (Blackstone Press Limited, 1992)
pg. 226
Phipson on Evidence, 12th Edition,
Sanni, A. Introduction to Nigerian Legal Method (2nd edition, Obafemi Awolowo University
Press Limited, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, 2006), pp. 140-142
Supreme Court Cases: Through the Eyes and Lips of Niki Tobi, Orak-Wise Publications,
Calabar, 2010, p.649
JOURNALS
Ladapo, O. A, “Effective Investigations, A Pivot to Efficient Criminal Justice Administration:

Challenges in Nigeria,” African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies. vol. 5,
no. 1&2, 2012.
Tong, S and Bowling, B, (2006), Art, Craft and Science of Detective Work”, the Police
Journal, Vol. 79, Issue 4.
42

INTERNET PUBLICATIONS
Aashima G., “Critical analysis of the concept of Confessions”

in <http://jurisonline.in/2011/11/critical-analysis-of-the-concept-of-confessions/> 6
June 2018
Abajuo R. E., An Appraisal of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015
<http://nji.gov.ng/images/Workshop_Papers/2016/Refresher_Judicial_Officers/s02.pd
f> 28 July 2018
Ali A. “War on Corruption: Role of the Media in Implementation of ACJA 2015”
<https://www.ilorin.info/fullnews.php?id=15837> 30 June 2018
Civil society on Police Reforms in Nigeria Report, (2012),
<http://www.noprin.org/CSO%20Panel%20Final%20Report.pdf> 28 September 2018
Eitokpah H. (Esq.), Vincent D., „Criminal Justice in Nigeria and the Administration of
Criminal Justice Act published on august 15 2017 on
<https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/criminal-justice-nigeria-administration-act-vincent-
dania> 20 July 2018
Falana F. how a defective Criminal Justice System freed Al-Mustapha, The Punch, Monday,
August 5th, 2013 at page 82 gotten from
<http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_21_
[Special_Issue_December_2013]/31.pdf> 6 June 2018
Innovative provisions of Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 published on
<http://thenationonlineng.net/innovative-provisions-of-administration-of-criminal-
justice-act-2015/> 6 June 2018
Intelligence, (2011), <https://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/nigeria/fcid.html >28
September 2018
Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong, “Confession Statements and their Admissibility in
Criminal Proceedings”, <www.hkreform.gov.hk/en/docs/radmissibility> 6 June 2018
Lawyard on Administration of Justice Act <http://www.lawyard.ng/administration-of-
criminal-justice-act-2015-innovations-challenges-and-way-forward/> 2 May 2018
Yemi A. G. (Prof, SAN, FCIArb Legal Practitioner and Consultant) The Administration of
Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015: An Overview in relation to criminal cases
adjudication in the Federal High Court. Published on
<http://www.censolegs.org/publications/4.pdf>accessed 6 June 2018
43

Legal Framework of Taking Confessional Statements Under The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (Acja) 2015 An Appraisal by Oluwanimbe A. Omolaja

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Legal Framework of Taking Confessional Statements Under The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (Acja) 2015 An Appraisal by Oluwanimbe A. Omolaja

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Framework of Taking Confessional Statements Under The Administration of Criminal Justice Act (Acja) 2015 An Appraisal by Oluwanimbe A. Omolaja

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF TAKING CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

BEING A LONG ESSAY SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4074098

DR. AKEEM BELLO

Department of Public Law

Faculty of Law, University of Lagos, Nigeria

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4074098

without God‟s help.

flowing thoughts unbecoming of legal thoughts and research.

Fourth, my acknowledgement will go to my mentor and teacher, Barrister Rotimi Akomolafe

the spark plug of my discoveries.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4074098

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4074098

Nigerian Cases Page

1. Anandagoda vs R(1962) 1 WLR 817 at 832…………………………………7

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4074098

1. R v Hulbert(1979) 69 Cr App R 243……………………………………………20

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4074098

Administration Criminal Justice Act 2015

Administration of Criminal Justice Laws of Lagos State 2011

The Criminal procedure Code …………………………………………………... 9

Police Act Cap P19 LFN 2004

Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 (PACE)

Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 1975 (as Amended)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4074098

 ACJA Administration of Criminal Justice Act

 CPC Criminal Procedure Code

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4074098

CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4074098

CHAPTER FOUR: ENFORCEMENT OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IN OTHER

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4074098

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4074098

1.1 Background to the Study

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4074098

interactions and configuration demands a progressive review of all criminal legislations.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

foremost is the existing conflict on admissibility of evidence between the Administration of

exclusive preserve of the Evidence Act as it is expressly contained in the Exclusive

decided cases on both scenario but the matter remains unresolved.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4074098

voluntariness of Confessional Statements.3 This delays the process of administration of

Nigeria can be juxtaposed with that of other countries.

The objectives of the study are;

2) Examine the implication of non-compliance with the procedure for taking of

Confessional Statements under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (2015)

and Administration of Criminal Justice Law, Lagos State (2011).

3) Examine other options for regulating the taking of Confessional Statements in

1.2 Research Questions

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4074098

Administration of Criminal Justice Law, Lagos State (2011)?

1.3 Operational Definition of Terms

“Administration of Criminal Justice” involves the detection, apprehension, detention,