…And in the absence of a confession, Mr Prosecutor?

However, the insistence of the prosecution in extracting confession has openly demonstrated its failure to secure conviction without necessarily resorting to extra-judicial statements.Section 28 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) defines Confession as an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed […]

However, the insistence of the prosecution in extracting confession has openly demonstrated its failure to secure conviction without necessarily resorting to extra-judicial statements.
Section 28 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) 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. It is now firmly established as was the case in Olabode V. State (2007) All FWLR (pt.389) 1301 that a confession is sufficient to ground conviction with only a caveat that it must be voluntary, direct and positive. Without any fear of contradiction, confessional statements – when legally received – are usually the best means by which criminal cases are established and this, without doubt, explains why prosecutors pursue this brand of evidence with uncommon zeal in virtually all criminal cases.
Evidently, as constitutional as confessional statement is, the prosecution has made it the focal point of its investigation without which securing conviction is almost a herculean task. This is no doubt a weakness on the part of the prosecution because when the confession is successfully challenged and same struck out, the prosecution’s case becomes more of a conjecture. As a result, high profile criminal cases have suffered a humiliating trend because of the obvious ineptitude of the prosecution in this regard. The duty of the judge is to dispense justice according to the facts laid bared before him and never to descend into the arena.
The failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and without resorting to extra-judicial statements – which in most cases are not properly obtained – is the very reason why our criminal justice administration is on a downward slide and a complete betrayer of the concept of innocence. The prosecution’s level of intelligence gathering and utilization is at its lowest ebb and worst still, the forensic and psychological aspect (criminal mind) of information gathering have not been critically explored. It is doubtful if our law enforcement agents can detect the nature of a criminal, the pattern, the modus operandi and the fingerprint connection from the examination of a crime scene. The common mantra of our prosecution/police appears to be, “Get me the suspect and I would force out a confession”. We are in a country, where after a crime has been committed and on getting to the crime scene, the law enforcement agents already muddle up the situation with their careless handling of some of the biological materials gathered at the crime scene, and ultimately making forensic examination of fingerprints, DNA etc., nearly impossible. Curiously, a research by a national litigation and public policy organization, The Innocence Project, reveals that about 30 percent of DNA exoneration cases, innocent people incriminated themselves or made outright confessions to the crime. This has shown that false confessions are major source of faulty convictions. This is clearly not the best way of criminal investigation as it underscores the fact that the prosecution’s case is a one way traffic and devoid of any meaningful dynamism.
The failure of intelligence gathering has constituted a barrier to the country’s fight against terrorism and other social vices. The war against the dreaded Boko Haram sect would have long have been won had our law enforcement agencies focused more on intelligence gathering rather than the usual and traditional unjustified arrest and forcing out of confession which have only draw the fight back. It was the potency of DNA evidence that eventually freed the North Carolina longest serving inmates and half-brothers, Leon Brown and Henry McCollum, after over 30 years in prison, due principally to false confessions. This case, like what is obtainable in Nigeria, showed just how law enforcement agents usually frame false confessions and practically forced suspects to sign after several and severe hours of interrogations.
The way to go is simply by ensuring that only trained personnel are saddled with the criminal justice administration. Right from investigation to trial, experts are to be deployed to handle the process. Intelligence gathering and management of sensitive information is also crucial in unravelling the criminal. The task of establishing a prima facie case would be much easier and fascinating if our law enforcement agencies attach enormous importance to forensic examination of crime scene and the biological materials found therein. This would not only ensure that the actual offender is convicted, it also prevents the innocents from undeserved punishments, as was the case in Leon Brown  and Henry McCollum’s case.  Again and more important, legal practitioners should be employed as special prosecutors to handle cases on behalf of the entire law enforcement agencies in the country. A police officer who is not a legal practitioner should not be allowed to prosecute a criminal case, even in the magistrate courts. This becomes necessary as it would instil professionalism in the criminal justice system.

Taofeeq practices law in Ilorin<[email protected]>;