Right Of Silence

The right of silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement agents or court officials. This right begins at the point of arrest and continues throughout the duration of the trial. Section 36 (11) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that; “No person who is tried for a criminal offence shall be compelled to give evidence at the trial. In ARMED V. NICE ARMY (2011) 1N.W.L.R pt 1227 pg 89 at 1186, it was held that an accused person has the constitutional right to remain silent and leave the trial to the prosecution to prove the charge against him. The priviledge of the right of silence, which exists as a shield for the innocent and the guilty, include protection from adverse consequences of inferences for lack of cooperation in the investigation process, protection from self incrimination, security from torture and mistreatment directed to obtaining confessions during investigation and from being required to testify in proceedings against themselves.
The police are charged with the duty of informing the suspect of his right to silence. This right is usually couched thus: “You have a right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer of your choice and if you choose to speak, anything you say may be used against you in evidence”. See S.6 (2) (a) of The Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. When an accused person exercises his right to silence, the prosecutor cannot comment on the accused person’s failure to give evidence in his defence. The prosecutor may not assert that the failure or refusal of the accused person to testify is an admission or evidence of guilt. However, when an accused person exercises his right to silence, the court may draw such inferences as it thinks just from the accused person’s silence. This is not contrary to the right to silence guaranteed by the constitution. In SUGH V. THE STATE (1988) 2.N.W. L.R (pt 77) P.475. The accused person was charged with culpable homicide, punishable with death. In course of the trial, the accused person did not make a statement as to the cause of the death of the deceased and the court commented on it in its judgement. On appeal, it was contended that the court’s comments on the accused persons failure to make a statement as to the cause of the death of the deceased violated the accused person’s right to silence. The Court of Appeal held as follows;
1. That the right to silence means that no accused person can be compelled to give evidence at his trial.
2. But it does not prevent a trial court from drawing any necessary inference from the evidence before it, the accused person’s failure or refusal to give evidence notwithstanding.
Some schools of thought believe that the right to silence is a clog in our criminal justice system. But I vehemently disagree with that opinion, the reason being that our criminal justice system suffers from abuse of process and the exercise of powers of office by government officials. The right to silence seems a greater good than its being a clog to our criminal system.

Nkechi Bright – Ewere