ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS

Learning outcomes;

 Meaning of an admission & confession

 Distinction between confession and admission
 Rationale for admitting admissions
 Statements without prejudice
 To whom a confession can be made
 Conditions under which a confession can be made
 Difference between repudiated and retracted confession
 Admissibility of repudiated and retracted confession
ADMISSIONS

An admission is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to

any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons or parties to
a suit. – S. 16 of the Evidence Act.

An admission means that a person has conceded to the truth of an alleged fact.

Admissions can be formal (documentary) or informal (oral) or express or implied.

Like confessions they are meant to be made freely voluntarily.

A party can be bound by admissions made by his agent or legal representative if the
agent or representative has express or implied power to make admissions on behalf of
the party - S.17 and 18 of the Evidence Act.

Read Sarope Petroleum Ld v Orient bank (u) ltd and others HCCS 198/2009 on
statements without prejudice

Discuss implications of Sections 17-22.

Guiding notes by Ivan Twongyeirwe, Tutorial Assistant UCU School of Law. LLB (Hons)-UCU,
Dip LP-LDCPage 1
CONFESSIONS

A confession is a statement which the accused person makes for the purpose of
admitting guilt of the alleged offence. – Parallax Narayana Swami vs. Emperor (1939)
41 BOMLR 428

In the same case, Lord Atkin stated that:

"No statement containing self-exculpatory matter could amount to confession

if the exculpatory statement was of some facts which if true could negative the
offence alleged to be confessed. Moreover a confession must either admit in
terms of the offence or at any rate substantially all which constitute the
offence".
Therefore a confession must be an unequivocal admission of having committed an act
which in law amounts to a crime and must either admit in terms the offence or at any
rate substantially all the facts which constitute an offence. Thus in Gopa & others v R
(1953)20 EACA 318, it was stated that the accused’s extra judicial statement was
exculpatory in the sense that it explained the act of stabbing and therefore the blame on
the deceased person. Also in the case of Uganda v Lakot (1986) HCB 27, it was held
that the confession was equivocal since the accused admitted to having assaulted the
complainant but went ahead to explain why he did so.

In the case of Gopa the Judge said that a confession is a direct acknowledgement of
guilt on the part of the accused which is sufficient to convict him. The judge held that
although an extrajudicial statement contains self-exculpatory matter it can still be a
confession if the self-exculpatory matter does not negative the offence alleged to be
charged. It is important to note that this is different from admissions. An admission
may be equivocal as long as it contains matters relating to the liability of the maker.

The definition of self-exculpatory is in Swami v The Emperor. It is clearly indicated that

it is a matter adopted or intended to free the maker from blame for the act admitted in
the confession. (See Uganda v Kamalawo & Others (1983) HCB 25.)

Guiding notes by Ivan Twongyeirwe, Tutorial Assistant UCU School of Law. LLB (Hons)-UCU,
Dip LP-LDCPage 2
The other ingredient is that a confession must be admitted as a whole. If it contains
some parts that are inadmissible then it cannot be taken as a confession.

In the case of Uganda v Yosefu Nyabenda (1972) 11 ULR 19, the judge clearly stated
that the court was to receive the confession of the accused as a whole and not in
several parts and since it contained lies and half-truth then the confession could not be
admitted as a true one. A confession has to be taken as a whole although it does not
have to be believed as a whole.

The case of Uganda v Sebuguzi & others (1988-1990) HCB 18 clearly stated that as
regards the value of a confession against the maker it is trite law that a confession
should be taken as a whole. It was also stated that a confession need not be believed
as a whole or disbelieved as a whole. It was open to the trial judge to accept part or
reject the whole of it.

What amounts to a valid confession?

A valid confession must be made voluntarily:

a) To a police officer of or above the rank of assistant inspector or a magistrate
who should caution the accused
b) In the absence of violence, force, threat, inducement or promise calculated to
cause an untrue confession
c) In the absence of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment
d) And established after holding ‘a trial within a trial’ to be admitted as evidence

The Evidence Act provides that a confession has to be made in the immediate
presence of a police officer of or above the rank of assistant inspector; or a
magistrate. S. 23 (a) and (b).

The Evidence Act also provides that no person shall be convicted of an offence solely
on the basis of a confession made in the presence of a magistrate unless the
confession is corroborated by other material evidence in support of the confession

Guiding notes by Ivan Twongyeirwe, Tutorial Assistant UCU School of Law. LLB (Hons)-UCU,
Dip LP-LDCPage 3
implicating that person. – S. 23

Read the case of Tumuhairwe v Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 17/1999

A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant if the making of the confession

appears to the court, having regard to the state of mind of the accused persons and to
all the circumstances, to have been caused by any violence, force, threat, inducement or
promise calculated in the opinion of the court to cause an untrue confession to be made.
– S. 24 (Voluntariness)

If such confession as is referred to in Section 24 is made after the impression caused

by any such violence, force, threat, inducement or promise has, in the opinion of the
court, been fully removed, it is relevant. – S. 25

Section 14 of the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act provides that: any
information, confession or admission obtained from a person by means of torture is
inadmissible in evidence against that person in any proceeding.

However, such information, confession or admission may be admitted against a person

accused of torture as evidence that the information, confession or admission was
obtained by torture.

R V Okello (1915) 2 ULR 169

The accused had confessed to the commission of an offence of murder. This was the
only evidence that could have been relied on convicting the accused. At the trial, the
accused retracted this confession and he pleaded not guilty. He admitted that he had
made the confession but alleged that he had at first denied his guilt before the chiefs
but they said "confess, confess and your punishment will be small, we will not send you
before the bwana if you confess". This confession was regarded to have been made by
inducement and inadmissible.

In the case of Turahi Mugambe and another Vs. Uganda, Criminal Appeal No.48 Of
1998 the Court interpreted S. 24 to imply voluntariness and further stated:

Guiding notes by Ivan Twongyeirwe, Tutorial Assistant UCU School of Law. LLB (Hons)-UCU,
Dip LP-LDCPage 4
 “We think that it is incumbent upon the trial judge to analyse the evidence of the
prosecution in the trial within a trial pertaining to the voluntariness of the
confession against the defence’s claim of torture before deciding one way or the
other on the voluntariness of the confession. It is not enough to simply say that I
am satisfied that the confession is voluntary. That would be window dressing.”

In Mwange s/o Njoroge V R 1954 EACA 357

The appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of a home-made fire arm. The
police officer who interrogated him didn't caution him and kept questioning every fifteen
minutes, "you had better think whether you are going to tell me or not."

It was held that these words constituted a threat and would render inadmissible any
confession got thereafter.

Nanyinda v R (1959) EA 688

It was held that magistrates had to follow an established procedure which is designed
to ensure that a statement taken by the magistrate is a voluntary one. The Court said:

“…To this end, we certainly think it advisable that a magistrate who is about to
take a statement should administer a caution in the normal form as laid down in
the Judges’ Rules. If there was anything to suggest that the failure to administer
a caution had resulted in the making of a statement which was not voluntary in
the sense explained in R. VS VOISIN [(1918) 1 KB 531] a trial judge might well, in
the exercise of his discretion, reject the statement.”

Section 26 of the Evidence Act;

A relevant confession does not become irrelevant merely because:

a) it was made under a promise of secrecy, or
b) in consequence of a deception practised on the accused person,
c) or when he or she was drunk,
d) or because it was made in answer to questions which he or she

Guiding notes by Ivan Twongyeirwe, Tutorial Assistant UCU School of Law. LLB (Hons)-UCU,
Dip LP-LDCPage 5
 need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of
those questions,
e) or because he or she was not warned that he or she was not bound
to make the confession, and that evidence of it might be given
against him or her.

RETRACTION AND REPUDIATION OF A CONFESSION

The validity of a confession is affected by retraction (where the accused withdraws the
statement though they made it) and repudiation (where the accused denies having
made the statement)

Such confessions are admitted with caution by courts and they have to be corroborated
with other material evidence where necessary.

Tuwamoi v R (1967) EA 84

"A trial court should accept any confession which has been retracted or
repudiated with caution and must, before founding a conviction on such a
confession, be fully satisfied in all circumstances of the case that the
confession is true. The same standard of proof is required in all cases and
usually a court will only act on the confession if corroborated in some material
particular by independent evidence accepted by the court. But corroboration is
not necessary in law and the court may act on a confession alone if it is
satisfied after considering all the material points and surrounding
circumstances that the confession cannot but be true."

In Mumbere v Uganda [2018] UGSC 4, the appellant in the course of his trial denied
having made the charge and caution statement. He also denied that the signature on
the charge and caution statement was his although his counsel claimed that he was
forced to sign a pre-prepared statement the contents of which he didn’t not know. Court
cited its earlier decision in Amos Binuge and another v Uganda, Criminal Appeal No.23

Guiding notes by Ivan Twongyeirwe, Tutorial Assistant UCU School of Law. LLB (Hons)-UCU,
Dip LP-LDCPage 6
of 1989, this court held as follows;

“It is trite that when the admissibility of an extra-judicial statement is challenged

then the objecting accused must be given a chance to establish by evidence, his
grounds of objection. This is done through a trial within a trial….The purpose of a
trial within a trial is to decide upon the evidence of both sides, whether the
confession should be admitted.”

In this case, the trial judge conducted a trial within a trial to determine the voluntariness
of this charge and caution statement.

Procedure for recording confessions

1. The accused person should be taken to a place or room where the environment
is conducive and free from any form of intimidation – for example it should not
be in a cell.
2. The conditions must be free of any form of undue influence. There should be no
security personnel in the presence of the officer or magistrate at the time of
recording the confession.
3. The accused person must be informed of his right to remain silent and be
cautioned about the consequences of making the confession.
4. A confession must be made in a language that the accused understands and it
must recorded in the exact words used by the accused.
5. The recorded statement must be read back to the accused who must certify that
what is written down is what he or she meant to say.
6. The accused must sign the statement or thumbprint it and the recording officer
or magistrate must countersign.

Note: if the above procedure is not complied with the statement could be rejected.

(Read Festo Androa Asenua and another v Uganda SCCA No. 1 of 1998)

CONFESSIONS AGAINST CO-ACCUSED. S. 27

Guiding notes by Ivan Twongyeirwe, Tutorial Assistant UCU School of Law. LLB (Hons)-UCU,
Dip LP-LDCPage 7
Where more than one person are being tried jointly for the same offence and a
confession is made by one of those persons affecting himself or herself and some
other of those persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession
as against that other person as well as the person who makes the confession.

However such confessions must be corroborated in order to secure a conviction: (R Vs.

Wandigombe and Others 1941 EACA 33; Karaya and Others Vs. R (1953) 20 EACA 324;
Gopa and Others Vs. R (1953) 20 EACA 318)

CONFESSIONS LEADING TO DISCOVERY. S.29

Notwithstanding Sections 23 and 24, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in

consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, so much
of that information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to
the fact thereby discovered may be proved.

Guiding notes by Ivan Twongyeirwe, Tutorial Assistant UCU School of Law. LLB (Hons)-UCU,
Dip LP-LDCPage 8