How Evidence Is Admissible

Admissible evidence in a court of law, is any testimo
nial, documentary or tangible evidence that maybe introduced to a judge or magistrate to establish a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible it must be relevant, material and competent. The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is in admissible. Under Nigerian law, facts which are in issue facts which are relevant to the facts in issue issue are generally admissible.
Confessional statements are also admissible, but it is worthy to note that only confessions gotten voluntarily are considered relevant and therefore admissible. In Akpan V. The State (2001) is NWLR (pt 737) 745, the court held that once a confession of guilt is shown to have been made freely and voluntarily, be it judicial or extra-judicial, if it is direct, positive and properly established it constitutes proof of guilt and its enough to sustain a conviction. So long as the court is satisfied as to its truth.
Section 29 (2) and (5) of the Evidence Act 2011, provides that any confession obtained from an accused person by torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, the use of threat or violence, hence by oppression  would not be considered voluntary and therefore inadmissible in evidence against the accused person. This provision is just for the records, because in most cases members of the Nigeria police torture and oppress their victims to obtain confessional statements and these statements are presented in courts as voluntary confession and are therefore admissible, since the onus is on the persecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was voluntary.
In Olabode V. The State (2009) All  FWLR  (Pt 500) 607 at P. 621, the supreme court held (per Muntaka-Coomassie JSC) that the test of the admissibility of a confessional statement is its voluntariness and once the issue is raised, it must be resolved before its admission.
Section 31 of the Evidence Act 2011 state that when a confession that was considered relevant cannot be viated by the way it was obtained it becomes admissible. In the words of the Act: “If such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy or in consequence of a deception practised on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk or because it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those questions, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such statement and that evidence of it might be given.”
This section clarifies that fact that a confession that is relevant will not become irrelevant because it was made under secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practiced on the defendant for the purpose of obtaining it. In Igbinovia V. The State (1981) 2 SC 5. Obaseki JSC explained that though deception is a mode of behaviour disapproved of by societies, it remains a widely accepted method used to fight and flush our criminals who wear the gab of innocence. In the instant case, the appellant was charged and convicted with murder. In order to elicit information from him, the police planted a police officer who disguised as a criminal suspect in the midst of the suspects in the cell.
The police officer lured the appellant by telling him his exploits. The appellant in term confessed that he took part in the killing of the deceased, mentioning the date and venue of the crime. It was contended on his behalf that the confessional statement was in admissible.
In rejecting the contention the supreme court held that if a policeman does not present himself as a police man but as a wild and vicious criminal and other suspected criminals take him as such and in order to boost their ego and establish better understanding with him open their mouths and pour out stories of what to them are brave deeds of courage but which to civilised human societies are atrocious acts of violence against society and humanity, that information cannot become inadmissible only by reason of the concealment of the status of the disguised policeman who was fed with such valuable information. The appeal was dismissed.

Nkechi Bright Ewere