Voluntary confession is most satisfying evidence – SC

On 25th August, 2008, the appellant made a statement to NDLEA officials wherein he confessed and admitted commission of the offence. At the end of investigation the appellant was arraigned before a Federal High Court, sitting in Port Harcourt in a one count charge which states:“That you FRANCIS NKIE, male, adult on or about the […]

On 25th August, 2008, the appellant made a statement to NDLEA officials wherein he confessed and admitted commission of the offence. At the end of investigation the appellant was arraigned before a Federal High Court, sitting in Port Harcourt in a one count charge which states:
“That you FRANCIS NKIE, male, adult on or about the 22nd day of August, 2008 at Zaakpim Road Junction, Khana Local Government Area Rivers State within the jurisdiction of this honourable court without lawful authority did knowingly possessed (sic) 0.4 grammes of cocaine, a narcotic drug and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 19 of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act Cap. N30 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.”
Upon arraignment, the appellant pleaded guilty to the allegation of criminal breach made against him as contained in the charge sheet reproduced above. The prosecution thereupon urged the court to convict the appellant after restating the facts constituting the offence and tendering exhibits pertaining to the crime which were admitted in evidence as Exhibits A – F thus:
Exhibit A – the alleged cocaine
Exhibit B – the certificate of test analysis
Exhibit C – packing of substance form
Exhibit D – Request for scientific aid/analysis form
Exhibit E – Receipt
Exhibit F – Appellant’s statement.
Consequent upon the above facts, the learned trial judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 18 months imprisonment.
Dissatisfied with his conviction by the learned trial judge, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction of the appellant and dismissed the appeal. Further aggrieved, the appellant has appealed to this court.
 The Notice of Appeal, has five grounds of appeal out of which the appellant has decoded a lone issue for the determination of this appeal.
On the 13th of February, 2014 when this appeal was heard, both counsel for the appellant, Tuduru Ede Esq., and that of the Respondent, Femi A. Oloruntoba, Esq., (Director, Prosecution and Legal Services, NDLEA) adopted and relied on their respective briefs. The sole issue distilled by the appellant states:
“Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were not wrong in affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant merely because of his plea of guilty and confessional statement?”
I shall determine this appeal based on the said single issue.
In his argument, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the offence charged against the appellant for which he was convicted and which the lower court affirmed was not proved in spite of the plea of guilty and confession to same by the appellant. It is his contention that the prosecution failed to prove:-
i. That the appellant dealt in cocaine
ii. That the substance allegedly charged as found on the appellant is cocaine.
iii. That the substance sent for forensic analysis is the same as allegedly found to be cocaine i.e. as reported in the Chemist report and is linked to appellant.
iv. Evidence of what happened to the recovered substance between the date of recovery and delivery for forensic analysis.
v. A person specified in Sections 42 – 43 of the Evidence Act issued report as in Section 44 thereof which confirmed the substance to be cocaine as shown in the result of the forensic analysis i.e. a Chemist report.
According to learned counsel, Exhibit B is a preliminary test result done by officers of the NDLEA and that the test is said to be positive for cocaine “pending forensic science laboratory result.” That Exhibit B is not conclusive that Exhibit A is cocaine since it was made subject to Chemist report under Sections 42 – 44 of the Evidence Act.
The summary of what I have been saying above is that in non-capital offence cases, after a plea of guilty by an accused person the court has a duty to proceed to convict the accused without necessarily calling on the prosecution to prove the commission of the offence by establishing the burden of proof ordinarily required by law. The reason is that the admission of guilt on the part of the accused would have satisfied the required burden of proof. Where however, the prosecution goes ahead to adduce evidence though scanty and tender documents as exhibits, this is an added strength to the case of the prosecution which also obliterates any doubt whatsoever on the mind of the trial judge to convict the accused. See DANGOTE v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PLATEAU STATE R. v. WILSON. Thus, the appellant, having voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge at the trial court, he cannot now be heard to be making a different case on appeal. He should not be allowed to approbate and reprobate in the same breath.
In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the learned trial judge was not satisfied that the appellant intended to admit the thrust of the essentials of the offence. It has to be noted that the plea of guilty by the appellant followed his earlier confessional statement which is consistent with his plea. And that takes me to the next issue to be considered in this appeal which is the confessional statement of the appellant. There is no doubt that the appellant made a confessional statement in this case which was admitted as Exhibit F at the trial court. At the said court, the appellant neither retracted nor challenged its admissibility. The said confessional statement part of which states:
“…. When the police stopped us, they asked us to search ourselves. I put my hand in my pockets and brought out my wallet, handkerchief and my cocaine…. The cocaine was the one I bought from one Keke Unkieu of Gbodo Village about four days before my arrest. I bought it at the rate of N250 per pinch. The eight (8) pinches costing N2,000… I intended to market it to anybody that ask of it… In NDLEA office, my cocaine was counted to give eight pinches, tested and shows colours of cocaine and weighed 0.4 grams in my presence.”
A confession or confessional statement has been defined in several cases by this court as an admission made by an accused person stating or suggesting that he committed the crime which is the object of the charge preferred against him. It is an acknowledgement of the crime of the accused. See Section 28 of Evidence Act 2011, AKIBU HASSAN v. THE STATE (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt. 735) 184, IKEMSON v. STATE (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455.
I need to emphasize that a confessional statement can only become proof of an act when it is true, positive and direct. A confessional statement made voluntarily, stating or suggesting the inference that an accused committed an offence for which he is standing trial is relevant and admissible against him provided the statement was not made as a result of any threat, promise or inducement from a person in authority. Also, any voluntary information given by the accused at any time during investigation which leads to the discovery of any fact material to the charge against him is equally admissible. See PETER v. STATE (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) 1, FATILEWA v. THE STATE (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1101) 518, (2008) 4 – 5 SC (Pt. 1) 191. It is quite reasonable to hold that a voluntary confession of guilt, if fully consistent and probable, and is coupled with a clear proof that a crime has been committed by the accused, is accepted as satisfactory evidence on which the court can convict. See OGOALA v. STATE (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 175) 509, PHILIP KANU & ANOR v. R. (1952) 14 WACA 30 at 32.
As a general rule, a free and voluntary extra judicial confession provides the most satisfying, the best and strongest evidence against an accused person. This is so because no man in his right senses will make admissions prejudicial to his interest and safety if the facts are not true and correct. In the instant case, the Appellant confessed to the commission of this crime. He did not retract or resile from it. In fact, he did not allege that he was forced or induced to make it. That is to say that the said statement was voluntarily made. To cap it, he pleaded guilty to the offence when the charge was read to him. Both his statement to the NDLEA officials and his plea are consistent and point irresistibly to the conclusion that he committed the offence and thereafter owned it up fully. I have no reason to hold otherwise. Both the trial court and the court below held the same view on the matter which I am in full agreement.
One last issue and I would have drawn the curtain. The fact that the prosecution in the instant case tendered Exhibits A – F including the substance alleged to be cocaine as Exhibit A., a certificate of test analysis as Exhibit B clearly takes the case out of the ambits of the authority of STEPHENSON v. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (1965) ALL NLR 261 relied upon by the appellant. In STEPHENSON’S case (supra), the weed alleged to be Indian hemp was not tendered in court but in the instant case, the substance suspected to be cocaine was tendered as exhibit A and backed up by a scientific analysis of same and tendered as Exhibit B. Also, in the confessional statement of the appellant he called the substance “cocaine.” For me, the argument of the appellant on this aspect is of no moment.
On the whole, it is my view that both on the plea of the appellant and his confessional statement, the court below was right to affirm the decision of the trial court which relied on both to convict and sentence the Appellant as a trial court can convict an accused person based on his confessional statement alone if found to be direct, positive, cogent and voluntary. The end result is that this appeal has no merit at all and is hereby dismissed. I affirm the decision of the court below in the circumstance.