ZAHARADEEN MOHAMMED v. THE STATE
(2014)LCN/6851(CA)
RATIO
WHEN A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACCUSED PERSON DID NOT MAKE
Where a confessional statement is challenged on the ground that the accused person did not make it, that is he denies it as in the appeal in this case the trial Judge should admit the statement in evidence and not bother himself whether or not the accused person made it. This is a matter that is decided at the end of the trial after the Judge must have taken into consideration all the circumstances. It is only then that a decision is made as to whether or not the accused person did make the statement. It is for the court to determine at the end of the hearing whether the contents of the statement are true as part of his determination of the truth or otherwise of the whole case. Where a statement of an accused person is a confession and it is challenged not on ground of voluntariness but on such grounds that the accused is not the maker or for incorrectly recording the confession and there being no issue of voluntariness, it should be admitted without holding a trial within trial, unless the accused person owns up the statement as his, the trial court labours in vain where as in this case, it has been belatedly disowned at the hearing at the trial within trial. See Iheme V State (2013) 2 SCNJ 1012 at 1037, 1041 and 1044, Lasisi V State (2013) 3 SCNJ 399, Omoju V State (2008) 2 SCNJ 197 and Dibie V State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1038) 30. On the tendering of the extrajudicial statement of the appellant in this case, it was challenged by learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that it was not voluntarily made. The learned trial Judge correctly ordered a trial within trial to test the voluntariness of the statement. During the trial within trial, the appellant denied making the statement. Per JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.
