TAIWO OLADEJO v. THE STATE
(2014) LCN/6986(CA)
RATIO
EVIDENCE: WHETHER A RETRACTED EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION/STATEMENT WOULD BE INADMISSIBLE
It is the law that where an extra-judicial confession has been proved to have been made voluntarily, and it is positive and unequivocal and amounts to an admission of guilt, it will suffice to ground a finding of guilty regardless of the facts that the maker resiled from it or retracted it altogether at the trial, as in the present case, since such a u-turn does not necessarily make the confession inadmissible. See, R v. KANU (1952) 14 WACA 30; QUEEN v. ITULE (1961) 2 SCNLR 183; QUEEN v. OBIASA (1962) 2 SCNLR 402; MUMINI v. STATE (1975) 6 SC 79; AREMU v. STATE (1984) 6 SC; EJINIMA v. STATE (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 2000) 267; AKPAN v. STATE (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 248) 439P, KIM v. STATE (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 233) 19; AKINFE v. STATE (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 85) 729; and ONWUMERE v. STATE (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 186) 428. In my humble opinion the learned trial judge rightly acted on the extra-judicial statements of the Appellant Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 4A, 12 and 12A as well as acting on all the other evidence adduced by the prosecution in the proceedings before the lower court, the retracted of the exhibits did not affect their admissibility, they formed part of the case of the case prosecution. See, OBOSI v. STATE (1965) NWLR 119; DUNIGO v. STATE (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 255) 525 and IKEMSON v. STATE (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455. Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A
