AMINA MUSA v. THE STATE
(2014)LCN/6845(CA)
RATIO
CRIMINAL LAW: CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE AN ACCUSED PERSON ADMITS TO COMMITTING AN OFFENCE
A confessional statement is the best evidence, as it comes from the Accused person to establish the truth of the case against him. It also implies a self-entanglement in the web of the offence. SALAHUDEEN VS. THE STATE (SUPRA); YUSUF VS. THE STATE (2012) LPELR 7878 (CA); OMOJUH VS. FRN (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 475) 1656.
In the case of BLESSING VS. FRN (supra), this court held that: “The law recognizes three ways of proving the guilt of an accused person, namely:
(a) Confessional Statement
(b) Evidence of eye witness and
(c) Circumstantial evidence that pins the accused to the crime. Out of the three;
Confession, the equivalent of admission in civil proceedings, is the most potent and reliable mode of establishing crime. See AKPA VS. STATE (2009) 39 WRN 27 (2008) 14 NWLR (PT.1105) 72; OSENI VS. STATE (supra). The reason is obvious. By a confession, entrenched in Section 27(1) of the Evidence Act 2004 (now 28 of the Evidence Act, 2011), an accused person himself admits and concedes to committing the offence in question. Thus, the accused person gives himself up to the law and becomes his own accuser and witness. Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A
