Effect Of A Confessional Statement Tendered And Admitted Without Objection

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

On Friday, the 31st day of March, 2023

Before Their Lordships

Musa Dattijo Muhammad

Chima Centus Nweze

Uwani Musa Abba Aji

Mohammed Lawal Garba

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju

Justices, Supreme Court

SC/CR/555/2020

Between

KEHINDE OLUGBEMI APPELLANT

And

THE STATE RESPONDENT

(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Uwani Musa Abba Aji, JSC)

Facts

Sometime in June 2013, the Appellant while in the employment of the Ogun State Judiciary as the Chief Bailiff in the Abeokuta Judicial Division sold a compressor belonging to the Court and corruptly benefitted the sum of N3,100,000.00 (Three Million, One Hundred Thousand Naira). The matter was reported to the Police, and the Appellant was arrested. The Appellant confessed to the act and with his assistance, the compressor was recovered from Abia State back to the premises of the High Court of Ogun State. Thereafter, he was arraigned on a two count charge of official corruption and stealing. He was found guilty of the two counts and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed his conviction and sentence. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a further appeal at the Supreme Court and submitted five issues for determination. The Respondent also distilled five issues for determination.

Issue for Determination

The Supreme Court identified the following sole issue, which it considered crucial and would better determine the appeal before it:

Whether by the circumstances and facts of the trial of the Appellant confessional statement, the lower court was not wrong to hold that the Respondent proved the charge of official corruption and stealing against the Respondent beyond reasonable doubt.

Arguments

Counsel for the Appellant argued that the co-existence of counts one and two on corrupt benefit and official corruption on the same compressor, is unconstitutional and a nullity. His argument was that the Appellant was not made to understand in detail, the nature and particulars of the official corruption and stealing for which he was charged, and the Information Sheet was devoid of the particulars of the person who bribed the Appellant and the owner of the stolen property. He contended that by the provisions of Section 98(1) and Section 383 of the Criminal Code Law of Ogun State for the respective offences of official corruption and stealing, the lower court was wrong to have dismissed the Appellant’s appeal when the ingredients of the said offences were not proved. He also argued that it was wrong for the lower court to admit the confessional statement of the Appellant, as the same had been obtained under oppression and torture. Finally, he submitted that it was wrong for the lower court to affirm that the Respondent was not wrong to re-open its case, after the Appellant’s defence. He urged the Court to allow the appeal.

Counsel for the Respondent replied that the co-existence of counts one and two on corrupt benefit and official corruption on the same compressor is in order, since the facts provided the needed particulars of the offences. He also argued that the Appellant, who was ably represented by counsel, did not object to the contents of the charge when it was read to him, and this showed that he fully understood the charge against him. He submitted that by the evidence of PW1, PW5 and the statement of the Appellant, the count of official corruption was proved against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. On the count of corrupt benefit, he stated that the totality of the evidence adduced by the Respondent and the Appellant’s confessional statement, showed that the Appellant was the one who sold the compressor and benefitted from it, hence, the offence of corrupt benefit was also proved against him beyond reasonable doubt.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

The Court held that the primary role of the charge sheet is to precisely inform the accused person of the nature of the accusation and allow him prepare his defence, and it is not the law that the framer of a charge or an Information Sheet must use the words or phraseology used in the provision of the law for the particulars of the offence to be therein disclosed. It is sufficient if the facts so supplied, provide and depict the needed particulars of the offence. The Court referred to its decision in KOLO v C.O.P. (2017) LPELR – 42577 (SC) (PP. 23 – 24, PARA. C – C).

The Court held that the statement of offence and particulars of both counts 1 and 2 on the Information Sheet as contained in the record, revealed so much as to give the Appellant a perfect understanding of what he was standing trial for. The aggregate of the facts stated on the Information Sheet revealed the necessary act on the part of the Appellant, and the contents of the Information Sheet were explicitly clear, and precisely and adequately informed the Appellant of the case he was to face before the trial court. The particulars of count 2 explicitly stated the owner/possessor of the stolen compressor as Ogun State Judiciary, even though it is not a requirement that the owner or possessor of a stolen property must be named on a charge for it to be valid. It was also evident on the record that the Appellant, who was represented by counsel, took his plea conveniently without any protest, and demonstrated that he understood the nature of the offences against him at trial. It cannot therefore, be said that the Information Sheet was shrouded with such anonymity or cluelessness, that the Appellant actually did not understand and in detail, what he was charged for.

Furthermore, by Section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Ogun State, 2006, no error in stating the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars should be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission and it has occasioned a failure of justice. Thus, for the court to consider any defect (if any), the Appellant must prove that such error has occasioned failure or miscarriage of justice to him. However, the Appellant failed to show any miscarriage of justice occasioned to him, by the purported omission in the Information Sheet.

On whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to affirm the admissibility of Exhibits 2 and 2A – the confessional statements of the Appellant, the Court held that when a confessional statement is admitted without objection from the maker or his counsel, the law implies that the maker of the statement agrees with everything in the statement. It also means that the maker made the statement voluntarily, and it is the truth on his role in the crime. The Court added that when a confessional statement is admitted without objection, the accused person is openly admitting that there is no element of involuntariness, oppression, torture or inadmissibility to it. The Court further held that if a court of law comes to the conclusion that a statement made by an accused person satisfies all the legal requirements of a confessional statement, then the charge against the accused must of necessity, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Referring to its decision in MUSA v STATE (2018) LPELR – 43846 (SC) (PP. 13 PARAS. D), the Court held that Exhibits 2 and 2A having been tendered and admitted without objection, the Appellant can be fully convicted on it. Moreover, the totality of the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses in addition to the confessional statements, established official corruption and stealing against the Appellant.

On the issue of whether the lower court was wrong to affirm that the trial court rightly allowed the Respondent to open its case after the Appellant had closed its case, the Court held that the reopening of a case is sometimes considered to enable the Court take, in the interest of justice, important points of law and facts relating to the case. Relying on its decision in KAJAWA v STATE (2018) LPELR-43911 (SC) (PP. 7-13, PARA. C-C), the Apex Court held that if the Defendant adduces in his evidence new matters which the Complainant could not foresee, the Complainant may, with the leave of court, adduce evidence to rebut such first mentioned evidence. The Court held that it was clear from the records that the trial court allowed the Respondent to re-open its case after the issue of auction-evidence of the compressor came up for the first time during the testimony of the Appellant, after the Respondent had closed its case. The case of the Respondent was stealing, and the new defence of the Appellant that he got the compressor by auction and not by stealing, came as a surprise to the Respondent; therefore, it became imperative for the Respondent to call witnesses to either ascertain it or disprove it. The lower court was thus, right to affirm the re-opening of the case of the Respondent after the close of the defence in the circumstance.

Appeal Dismissed.

Representation

Olaniran Obele Esq. for the Appellant.

Adejumoke Adewole Esq., D.P.P. Ogun State for the Respondent.