Voluntary Confession

A confession is 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. Note 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 also admissible. See Fatilewa V. The state (2008) 12 NWLR (pt 1101) 518.
It is quite reasonable to hold that 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. As a general rule, a free and voluntary extra judicial confession provides the most satistying, the best and strongest evidence against an accused person. This is so because no man in his right sense will make admissions prejudicial to his interest and safety, if the facts are not true.
Also, an accused person can be convicted on the evidence of his voluntary confession which is true when the confession is consistent with other ascertained facts which have been proved. The accused can also be convicted on the extra-judicial confession alone. See Agholor v. Attorney General Bendel State (1990)6 NWLR (Pt 155)141 at 154. But where a confessional statement is retracted, it is desirable to have some evidence outside the confession which goes to show the confession was probably true. But the weight to be given to it is a matter for the trial judge. See Otufala V. the state (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt 255) 525 at 534. I – Onwumere V. state (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt 186) 428 at p.440 Akpata, JSC said:
“If the accused person resiles from his confessional statement, it is his function to explain to the court as part of his defence the reason for the inconsistency. In such circumstances if he is to be believed, the accused has to lead evidence to establish that his confessional state could not be correct. It may be he was unsettled in mind at the time the statement was made or that he was induced to do so.

Nkechi Bright Ewere