Conviction of an Accused Person on a Retracted Confessional Statement

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Abuja On Friday, the 12th day of December, 2025 Before their Lordships John Inyang Okoro Adamu Jauro Jummai Hannatu Sankey Stephen Jonah Adah Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justices, Supreme Court SC/CR/855/2020 Between Iniobong Matthew Etuk-Udo Appellant And The State Respondent (Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Jummai Hannatu Sankey, JSC) Facts The Appellant and two others at large were alleged to have killed one Monday Matthew and Owoidoho Monday Matthew, by pouring petrol on them and setting them ablaze on 6th June, 2009 at Ikpe Atai village of Etim Ekpo LGA of Akwa Ibom State. It was further alleged that on the same day and in the same vicinity, the Appellant and his cohorts set ablaze the Holy African Apostolic Church, as well as a Q-Link Motorcycle, both belonging to one Elder Ime Matthew. The Appellant was consequently arrested and arraigned before the High Court of Akwa Ibom State on a two-count information of murder and arson contrary to Section 323(a)–(d) and Section 464(a) of the Criminal Code, Laws of Akwa Ibom State After considering the case presented by both sides, the trial Court found the Appellant guilty as charged, convicted him, and sentenced him to death by hanging. Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgement of the trial Court. Consequently, the Appellant lodged a further appeal at the Supreme Court. Issues for Determination The Supreme Court adopted the issues formulated by the Appellant for the determination of the appeal, as follows: 1) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were wrong, when they failed and/or neglected to consider and pronounce on all the issues submitted to the Court by the Appellant for determination of the appeal. 2) Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were wrong to have affirmed the trial court’s conviction and sentencing of the Appellant, based on the retracted extra-judicial statement. Arguments Arguing the 1st issue, Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Court of Appeal erred when it failed to consider and pronounce on the Appellant’s objection to the competence of the sole issue presented by the Respondent, and the Appellant’s complaint that the trial court failed to demonstrate how it applied the six-way test to assess the weight attached to his retracted extra-judicial statement. Counsel contended that this failure breached the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing. In response, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Court of Appeal was correct in its judgement because, in arriving at its decision, it substantially considered and pronounced on all the live issues necessary for the determination of the appeal. Counsel contended that as it was entitled to, the Court of Appeal had adopted the Appellant’s issues for determination in the resolution of the appeal and its failure to rule specifically on the Appellant’s objection to the Respondent’s Brief was inconsequential, as the issues for determination were identical in substance. Reliance was placed on UDEH KINGSLEY EMEKA v THE STATE (2014) LPELR-2300 (SC). On the 2nd issue, Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Court below was wrong to affirm the conviction and sentence of the Appellant which were based solely on his retracted extra-judicial statement. Counsel submitted that a retracted statement is not evidence of the truth of its contents, and that the prosecution failed to provide any independent evidence to corroborate the retracted statement. He also argued that the prosecution’s failure to call vital witnesses listed in its proof of evidence, such as the nominal complainant and the medical doctor who examined the corpse of the deceased, was fatal to its case. Responding, Counsel for the Respondent argued that the Appellant’s conviction was properly based on his confessional statement. Counsel maintained that a trial-within-trial was properly conducted and the statement was found to be voluntary. He argued further that the trial Court correctly applied the six-way test to assess the statement’s veracity, in addition to the fact that there was corroborative evidence, such as the timing of the Appellant’s mother’s death, which aligned with the motive stated in the confession. Counsel for the Respondent urged the Apex Court, to refuse the Appellant’s appeal. Court’s Judgement and Rationale Deciding the 1st issue, the Supreme Court held that it is good law that it is the duty of the Court, whether of first instance or appeal, to consider all fundamental and material issues submitted for determination before it. The Court however, held that, notwithstanding this, the general rule will not operate where the issue for determination in question is subsumed in another issue; or where its resolution is clearly obvious under another issue. The Apex Court relied on its decision in GARBA v MOHAMMED & ORS. (2016) LPELR-40612 (SC). The Apex Court held that from its review of the printed record of appeal, it was apparent that the Court of Appeal considered the Appellant’s objection on the competence of an issue framed in the Respondent’s Brief of Argument, and having done so, it elected to determine and resolve the appeal based only on the issues for determination as couched and raised by the Appellant. The Apex Court held that the Court of Appeal had in fact, pronounced that after examining the issues submitted by the parties, it found that the Respondent’s issue can be conveniently subsumed under the Appellant’s issues and decided thereunder. The Apex Court thus found that the said objection to the issues for determination formulated by the Respondent in its Brief of Argument, had been rendered otiose and ineffective, the moment the Court of Appeal adopted the issues for determination of the appeal submitted by the Appellant, rather than those formulated by the Respondents, in the resolution of the appeal. On the Appellant’s complaint that the Court of Appeal failed to consider and make a pronouncement on issue 2 raised and argued in his Brief of Argument which raised a challenge to the trial court’s failure to show how it applied the six-way test enunciated in R v SKYES, the Court held that from a review of its records, it was evident that the said issue 2 submitted by the Appellant before the Court of Appeal, did not in any way question whether or not the six-way test enunciated in R v SKYES had been applied. The Apex Court held further that Grounds 2 and 3 of the Appellant’s Further Amended Notice of Appeal and the particulars from which the issue in question was distilled, did not mention the supposed complaint as has been suggested by the Appellant. The Court also held that it was abundantly clear that the Appellant in his argument on the said issue, merely questioned the evaluation of the evidence as it relates to the burden of proof, which point was corroborated by the admission of the Appellant himself in his Brief of Argument. The Apex Court held that it was therefore surprising, that the Appellant was now arguing a different issue which he had failed to argue before the Court of Appeal. In admonition, the Apex Court held that parties are expected to maintain consistency in the presentation of their cases from the trial Court right through the process of appeal, and a party is not allowed to make a different case on appeal from what he argued before the trial court or the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court referred to its pronouncement in this regard, in MOHAMMED v STATE (2024) LPELR-62544 (SC) and NIGERIAN ARMY v ABUO (2022) LPELR-57980 (SC). On the basis of the foregoing, the Supreme Court resolved the first issue against the Appellant, and proceeded to consider the second issue. On the 2nd issue, the Supreme Court held that a Defendant can be safely convicted on his retracted confessional statement, on the condition that the Court finds the confessional statement to be satisfactorily proved. Relying on its decision in the recently decided ADAMU v STATE (2025) LPELR-80561(SC) 9, D-F, the Apex Court held that a Court can safely convict an accused person on his retracted confessional statement once the confession is voluntary, positive, direct and credible; and even though the retraction does not diminish the value of such a confession, it is desirable that some evidence should, even slightly, corroborate it. The Apex Court held further that nevertheless, the desirability for some corroborative evidence outside the confessional statement, it is not mandatory or compulsory for the trial court to identify any corroborative evidence before convicting the Defendant, once the confessional statement is found to have been made voluntarily, and it is found to be direct, cogent and amounts to a clear admission of guilt, regardless of whether the Defendant subsequently resiles from it. The Court relied on AGU v STATE (2017) LPELR-41664(SC). The Court held that it had, over time, come up with some tests to verify the truthfulness, voluntariness and authenticity of a retracted confessional statement and these tests are: (i) Is there anything outside the confession to show that it his true? (ii) Is it corroborated in any way? (iii) Are the relevant statements of facts made in it most likely to be true, as far as they can be tested? (iv ) Did the accused person have the opportunity of committing the offence? (v) Is the confession possible? (vi) Is the confession consistent with other facts which have been ascertained or established? The Supreme Court held that in the instant case, the slight evidence outside the Appellant’s retracted confession which served as corroboration, was the fact that the Appellant’s mother had indeed, died, and the Appellant was infuriated and enraged, and this was the reason he gave in his confessional statement for leaving Lagos upon receiving the news, and going to the village to visit vengeance and wreak havoc on the deceased persons, whom he believed were responsible for her death and their properties. The Apex Court held that the Appellant made a confessional statement, wherein he voluntarily in very clear and detailed terms recounted how he and his cohorts poured acid on the two deceased persons who were sleeping in a church, and plainly owned up to being responsible for their death, as well as the burning of the Church and the motorcycle, and even gave his reason for so doing, as his belief that the victims were responsible for the death of his mother. The Court held that this fact alone, which was verifiable, being an event that happened outside the confession, satisfies each of the six tests set out above. On the Appellant’s contention that the Respondent’s failure to call vital witnesses it listed on its proof of evidence was fatal to its case, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution is not under any obligation to call a host of witnesses, but is only required to call enough material witnesses to prove its case against an accused person, and in so doing, it has a discretion in the matter on who or who not to call as witness(es). The Court held that in the instant case, apart from PW1 – the Investigating Police Officer, the Respondent had rightly elected to rely only on the confessional statement of the Appellant, which was detailed and found to be voluntary. The Apex Court held that it was thus, satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, wherein it affirmed the judgement of the trial court. Appeal Dismissed. Representation Jimi Okodaso with U. U. Fingesi for the Appellant. Amaka Ezeno with the Fiat of the Attorney-General of Akwa Ibom State for the Respondent.. Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)