SEGUN AYOBAMI v. THE STATE
(2014)LCN/6876(CA)
RATIO
WHETHER THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE ADMITTED BY AN ACCUSED WHERE PARTLY FAVOURABLE TO THE ACCUSED
Jean Omokiri .JCA in Ele vs. The State (2006) All FWLR (P.329 – 849) where the learned judge said “it is well settled principle of law of evidence that in an account which a party gives of a transaction, the whole must be taken together. An admission of a fact disadvantageous to the accused cannot be admitted without admitting his contemporaneous assertion of fact favourable to him. A court should believe the account given by an accused wholly or not. It is palpably wrong for a court, as was done in this case, to accept part of the statement of the Appellant which is not favourable to him and reject the part favourable o the accused person.” See also Saidu v. The State (1982) 4 S.C. 41 and Queen V. Itule (1961) 1 All NLR 462.
My learned brother in order to come to that conclusion relied on Inusa Saidu Vs. The State (1982) 4 SC 26 wherein Obaseki JSC in his lead judgment at page 37 folio 35 had said “where a mixed statement namely one containing confessions and self-exculpatory parts is under consideration by a jury in a case where the person charged had not given evidence, in deciding where the truth lay the jury has to consider the whole statement, both the incriminating part and the excuses or explanations.” Per RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO, J.C.A
