Confession must be direct, positive and unequivocal – S/Court
In The Supreme Court of Nigeria On Friday, the 21st day of September 2007 Before Their Lordships Aloysius Iyorgyer Katsina-Alu ….JSC George Adesola Oguntade……..JSC Mahmud Mohammed……….JSC Francis Fedode Tabai ……….JSC Christopher Mitchel Chukwuma-Eneh ….(JSC) Justice, Supreme Court S.C. 139/2006 Between Nigeria Navy Chief of Naval Staff […]
In The Supreme Court of Nigeria
On Friday, the 21st day of September 2007
Before Their Lordships
Aloysius Iyorgyer Katsina-Alu ….JSC
George Adesola Oguntade……..JSC
Mahmud Mohammed……….JSC
Francis Fedode Tabai ……….JSC
Christopher Mitchel Chukwuma-Eneh ….(JSC) Justice, Supreme Court
S.C. 139/2006
Between
Nigeria Navy
Chief of Naval Staff
Attorney-General of the Federation – Appellant
And
Lt. Commander S. A. Ibe-Lambert – Respondent
Judgment of Court Delivered by George Adesola Oguntade JSC (as he then was)
The respondent, Lt. Commander S. A. Ibe-Lambert was an officer in the Nigerian Navy. She was arraigned before a General Court Martial (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial tribunal’) on 09-07-97 on a five count charge. At the conclusion of trial, she was discharged and acquitted on four of the five counts but found guilty on the 3rd count which reads:
“Disobedience to correct standing orders contrary to Section 57(1) of the Armed Forces Decree No 103 of 1993 as amended.”
Dissatisfied with her conviction, she appealed before the Court of Appeal, Lagos (hereinafter referred to as ‘the court below’). The court below on 06-12-2005 allowed her appeal and the respondent was discharged and acquitted. The appellants have come on a final appeal against the judgment of the court below.
Now, Section 57(1) and (2) of the Armed Forces Decree No. 105 of 1993 as amended under which the respondent was charged provides:
“(1) A person subject to service law under this Act who contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of an order to which this section applies, being a provision known to him or which he might reasonably be expected to know, is guilty of an offence under this section and liable, on conviction for a term not exceeding two years or any less punishment provided by this Act.
(2) This section applies to standing orders and other routine orders of a continuing nature made for any formation, unit or body of troops or for any area, garrison or place or for any ship, train or aircraft.”
The standing order which the respondent was alleged to have contravened or failed to comply with was tendered in evidence before the trial tribunal as exhibit 4. The said exhibit reads:
“Standing Order No. NHQ/015/93/Ph/Vol.l/44 ‘VISIT TO FOREIGN MISSION Reference
A. DHQ/401/13/ADM/dated 03 July, 95
1. Ref. I observed that military officer usually pay unauthorized visit to Foreign Missions. This is unethical and embarrassing.
2. I am therefore directed to state that henceforth contact with Embassies/High Commission by NN Personnel are to be made through NHQ for necessary action.
3. Please disseminate (emphasis added)
Signed
I. Ogohi
CDRE
(For Chief of Naval Staff)”
When exhibit 4 above is related to Section 57(1) of Decree No. 105 of 1993 as amended which is reproduced above, it is seen that the naval authorities by Exhibit 4 were trying to prevent military personnel from paying unauthorized visits to Foreign Missions. It was to criminalize such visits or practice that the standing order which was tendered in evidence as exhibit 4 was made. At the respondent’s trial, no person who had seen the respondent pay a visit to any foreign mission was called as a witness. The only evidence available was the respondent’s statement in the course of investigation which the appellants’ relied upon as confessional. The said statement Exhibit 1 reads:
“Sometime in August, 1996 about the 22nd of August, I travelled with my son Tobi to London on holiday to Euro-Disney. My older son had earlier travelled to USA to join us in London, so we can proceed to France from the Euro Disney.
I made arrangement to travel through my husband who was able to develop a passport for me in his name. He was able to secure a visa for us, through his business partners in VI. We left for Paris late August 96 through a travel package for a one week holiday by British Airways. We arrived Paris and were taken to hotel booked by the Tours in Paris within the Euro Disney.
The children and myself stayed for one week at the Chinoy’s Hotel and were visiting Euro Disney everyday till we came back through London to Nigeria.
I travelled under the name of Mrs. Arinola Adunni Motaku which is a family name of Gbenga.
I did travel with the children on holidays and will provide to the NN the copies of the ticket and package of the tours.”
In convicting the respondent on the basis of the above statement, the trial tribunal observed:
“8. The prosecution was to prove the following:
a. That the accused was Staff Officer II (Accts).
b. That the accused made contact with the Embassy.
c. That it is an offence to do so.
d. That she knew or reasonably expected to know that it is an offence to have contact with the foreign embassies.
e. That the accused made contact without NHQ approval.
9. It was established that the accused received a letter from the French Embassy which she tore. She later received Exhibit 6, another letter from the French Embassy which she turned into the DNI during interrogations. Exhibit 6 is equivocal evidence of response to an earlier supposed request. This incontrovertibly establishes contact between the Embassy and the accused.
FINDINGS
10. The accused is thus found guilty on count three.”
The court below on the other hand was of the view that the evidence available against the respondent did not establish her guilt. It said:
“The crucial evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction under the 3rd head of charge are Ex. 2, the petition against the Appellant, Ex.6 a letter purportedly addressed to the Appellant from the French Embassy and authored by one Gerard Bvivieneu, the Minister Counsellor.
These exhibits cannot by themselves establish any fact beyond their being made. If the intention of the prosecution in tendering the two through PW1 and PW2 was to establish the truth contained in the two documents, they have failed and woefully too. See Awuse Odili (2005) 1.6 NWLR [Pt.952] 416 at 509 and UBN Plc. v. Ishola (2001) 15 NWLR [Pt. 735] 47.
In effect, the two documents cannot establish the fact of contact with the French Embassy by the Appellant which Ex.4, the standing order, prohibited the Appellant to make.
Respondent’s argument also it was that Ex.1, the appellant’s confessional statement could sustain the conviction. What was it that appellant confessed to in Ex.1? Appellant stated in Ex.1 that she travelled to Paris with her children and husband; that it was her husband who acquired her entry visa through his business partners and that she travelled under her husband’s family name. Mrs. Arinola Adunni Motaku.
It is no wonder that even the Court Martial called this much statement as being ‘equivocal’. This statement does not supply the ingredients under the head of charge appellant was convicted. It does not show that the appellant in person had had a ‘contact’ with a foreign embassy, a conduct Ex.4 the standing order had prohibited.”
The important question to answer is whether the court below was wrong to have come to the conclusion that the guilt of the respondent was not established. It would seem that the trial tribunal accepted the respondent’s statement Exhibit 1 as an admission of the requisite ingredients of the offence brought against her. The court below thought that the respondent did not make any admission in the said statement.
I stated earlier in this judgment that the clear intendment of Exhibit 4 was to prohibit personal visits by military personnel to foreign missions. It is such visits that Exhibit 4 expressed to be “unethical and embarrassing.” The respondent did not admit in Exhibit 1 that she made personal visits to any foreign mission. She said:
“I made arrangement to travel through my husband who was able to develop a passport for me in his name. He was able to secure a visa for us through his business partners in VI.”
The respondent did not even admit that her husband visited any foreign mission much less herself. In order to amount to a confession, the statement of an accused must be direct, positive and not equivocal. See Raimi Afolabi v. Commissioner of Police [1961] AH NLR 654. Nor can a statement amounting to only an implication in a crime be regarded as a confession. See R v. Phillip Jonah & Ors. [1934] 2 W.A.C.A. 120 and R. v. Akpan Udo Essien [1939] 5 W.A.C.A.
In the instant case, an essential element in the case against the respondent was that she personally visited foreign missions. The statement by her that her husband obtained the visas with which she travelled could not be relied upon by the appellants as evidence that she had herself visited any foreign mission: See Edet Obosi v. State [1965] N.M.L.R. 119.
The court below was therefore correct in its view that the offence against the respondent was not established.
With respect to appellant’s issue No 2, it is my view that as the Court of Appeal did not decide against the appellant on the admissibility of Exhibit 4, it could not be an issue for decision in this appeal as to whether or not the said exhibit was properly rejected in evidence. At page 451 of the record of proceedings, the court below said:
“It is not the law that the Exhibits admitted which appellant is now complaining of are inadmissible in any and all circumstances. No. The exhibits are relevant and therefore admissible, but needed to satisfy certain condition, certification, before they are admitted. In this situation unlike where the exhibits are completely inadmissible, the Court of Appeal is not in the position to entertain appellant’s complaints by ensuring that the exhibits are not acted upon. Appellant is right however to question the value which the lower court attached to the exhibits having been tendered and admitted through witnesses who could not have been helpful under cross examination. See Owonin v. Omotosho (1961) 1 All NLR 304 at 308; Chukwurah Ekunne v. Mathias Ekwunno & Ors. 14 WACA 59 and Yassin v. Barclays Bank DCO (1968) 1 A11 NLR 171 at 179”
What the court below concluded in the above passage was not that Exhibits 1, 2, 4,5,6,7 and 8 were inadmissible but that they could not be relied upon to sustain the conclusion which the trial tribunal arrived at. That being the position, appellants’ issue 2 does not arise in this appeal.
In the final conclusion, I would dismiss this appeal as unmeritorious.