Effect of Oral Retraction of Confessional Statement during Trial

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

On Friday, the 4th day of July, 2025

Before Their Lordships

John Inyang Okoro

Tijjani Abubakar

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru

Jamilu Yammama Tukur

Mohammed Baba Idris

Justices, Supreme Court

SC/537/2020

Between

Ramoni Animashaun                          Appellant  

                               And

The State        Respondent   

(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Tijjani Abubakar, JSC)

Facts

The Appellant was arraigned before the High Court of Ogun State, on a two-count charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery, contrary to and punishable under Sections 6(b) and 1(2)(a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act. The Appellant and his co-accused persons were specifically alleged to have attacked one Raheem Lateef with a gun, led him into his house, and dispossessed him of the phones belonging to his wife and brother.

At the trial, the prosecution called four witnesses in proof of its case. The victim, Raheem Lateef, testified as PW1; Hon. Femi Arowora testified as PW2; while Corporal Muritala Buhari and Corporal Oseni Sulaimon testified as PW3 and PW4 respectively. The prosecution also tendered four exhibits, which included a locally made pistol and cartridge. At the conclusion of the trial, the Appellant was found guilty on both counts, convicted, and sentenced to death by hanging. The judgement of the trial court was delivered on the 24th day of May, 2017.

Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the Appellant lodged an appeal before the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division. On 25th June, 2020, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgement, affirming the decision of the trial court. Dissatisfied with the concurrent findings of the two lower courts, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the decisions of the lower courts.

Issues for Determination

The Appellant and the Respondent formulated one issue each, for the determination of the appeal. Given that the issues submitted by both parties were substantially similar, the Supreme Court adopted the sole issue as formulated by the Appellant for determination, thus:

Whether having regard to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in affirming the conviction and sentencing of the Appellant for the Offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery?

Arguments

The Appellant argued that he was not sufficiently identified as one of the persons who robbed PW1 and his family, and that the evidence adduced fell short of linking him to the armed robbery incident. He contended that the trial court relied solely on the testimony of an eyewitness – PW1, and the alleged confessional statement of the Appellant to conclude that the prosecution had proved all the ingredients of the offences of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery. He submitted that for the prosecution to succeed in establishing the offences alleged, it must establish the identity of the accused and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by credible evidence, and that where this is not done, the prosecution’s case must fail, relying on STATE v ISIAKA (2013) 11 NWLR (PT. 1364) 162. 

On the charge of armed robbery specifically, the Appellant conceded that the prosecution established the first two ingredients, namely that there was a robbery and that it was an armed robbery, but contended that the third ingredient – that the Appellant was one of the robbers – was not proved. He argued that the lower court found a contradiction in the evidence of PW4 regarding the gun allegedly recovered from him, and was wrong to have treated such contradiction as immaterial. He submitted that it was impossible for two trained Police officers to observe the same weapon and for one to describe it as a Dane gun while the other described it as a pistol, and that this contradiction was fatal to the prosecution’s case as it went to the root of the second element of the offence. He urged the court to so hold, relying on ADEKUNLE v STATE (2006) LPELR-107 (SC), for the proposition that all ingredients of an offence must co-exist, and that where any one is absent or tainted with doubt, the charge cannot be said to have been proved. The Appellant argued further that the trial court erred in relying on the extra-judicial statement purportedly made by the Appellant, which the Appellant denied authoring. He submitted that where an accused person denies making a confessional statement, the statement, though admissible, must be tested for its veracity and probative value at the conclusion of trial, relying on HASSAN v STATE (2001) LPELR-1358 (SC). He contended that the Appellant denied ever robbing anyone, raised a defence of alibi, and denied making any confessional statement; that the trial court itself found the evidence of PW1 to PW3 on the identification of the Appellant unsatisfactory and discredited same; and that the trial court failed to consider the defence of alibi raised by the Appellant, yet, proceeded to convict and sentence the Appellant to death on the basis of his confessional statement, without testing its veracity. On the whole, he urged the court to resolve the sole issue in his favour, hold that the Respondent failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and allow the appeal.

On the part of the Respondent, it was submitted that in criminal trials, a court is under a legal duty to identify and be satisfied by evidence that all ingredients of the offences charged are proved to the required standard, before a conviction can be sustained. Counsel submitted that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt, relying on AYINDE v STATE (2019) 12 NWLR (PT. 1687) 140, and that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, which must also rebut the constitutional presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, relying on the decision in AGBI v OGBEH (2006) 11 NWLR (PT. 990) 65. Regarding the charge of armed robbery, it was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that all the ingredients of the offence were duly proved, and that the fact of the robbery was not in dispute, the Appellant having raised no denial on record. The Respondent contended that the prosecution proved the offence and linked the Appellant to it through the direct eyewitness testimony of PW1, who gave evidence that the Appellant was armed with a gun, threatened violence, and that the Appellant and his co-accused persons fired shots at their pursuers during the chase. It contended further that PW3 and PW4, as Investigating Police Officers, identified the gun recovered from the Appellant, and that the combined testimonies of PW1, PW3 and PW4 sufficiently established that the accused persons were armed at the time of the robbery. On the issue of contradiction in the description of the recovered weapon, the Respondent argued that no material contradiction existed, and that even if any existed, it was not sufficient to go to the root of the evidence. That it was immaterial whether the weapon used was a Dane gun or a locally made pistol, as the requirement of the law is simply that a gun or firearm was used. 

With regard to the charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, it was submitted that conspiracy is a distinct offence from the predicate crime, and is consummated the moment two or more persons agree to do an unlawful act, whether immediately or at some future time. He argued that direct proof of the agreement is not always obtainable, given that such agreements are typically hatched in secrecy, but that the evidence on record, including eyewitness testimony, sufficiently pointed to the existence of an agreement among the accused persons to pursue a common illegal objective. The Respondent urged the court to hold that it proved all the ingredients of both offences beyond reasonable doubt, dismiss the appeal, and affirm the decision of the lower courts.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court emphasised that the standard of proof placed on the prosecution in criminal trials is a heavy one, requiring that the guilt of an accused be established beyond reasonable doubt. The court anchored this position on Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) and its earlier decision in NWATUROUCHA v THE STATE (2011) 6 NWLR (PT. 1242) 170 AT 193. On what constitutes proof beyond reasonable doubt, the court stated that “proof beyond reasonable doubt means proof to moral certainty, such proof as satisfies the judgement and conscience of a Judge as a reasonable man, and applying his reasons to the evidence before him as to leave no other reasonable conclusion possible”. The court proceeded to itemise the ingredients which the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction for armed robbery, namely: (a) that there was a robbery or series of robberies; (b) that the robbery or each robbery was an armed robbery; and (c) that the accused was the armed robber or one of the armed robbers.

In examining the evidence adduced in proof of these ingredients, the court referred to the testimony of PW1, who gave evidence of how the Appellant accosted him with a gun, dispossessed him of his Techno phone, and demanded money from him. The court noted further that, the Appellant had made a confessional statement in which he admitted his participation in the armed robbery incident, which he subsequently retracted at trial. On the weight and effect of a confessional statement as a mode of proof, the court held that “there can be no better proof of the commission of a crime than the words of the accused, voluntarily stating how the offence was committed and the role he played”. The court defined a confession as “an admission made at any time by a person charged with a criminal offence, stating or suggesting that he committed the crime”, relying on the decision in SAIDU v THE STATE (1982) 3 SC 41. On the legal effect of the Appellant’s retraction of his confessional statement, the court held that “retraction of confessional statement by an accused person in his oral testimony in court during trial, is of no moment. The most important thing is that, the court must be satisfied as to the truth of the confession and can therefore, rely on it alone to ground conviction. More so, where there are other facts pointing to the guilt of the Appellant”. Considering the totality of the evidence adduced, the court held that the confessional statement of the Appellant was direct, positive and unequivocal. Resting on the plank of the confessional statement, the court held further that the Appellant committed the offence in the company of, and with the cooperation of his co-accused. As such, the conviction of the Appellant for conspiracy to commit armed robbery was upheld.

The court also touched on the issue of contradiction in the evidence of PW4, on the gun that was used to carry out the robbery. The court regarded the contradiction as minor and immaterial. The court held that “it is not every minor contradiction in the evidence of witnesses that matters, or has the effect of rendering the evidence unbelievable”.

In the end, the Supreme Court resolved the sole issue against the Appellant. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the decision of the trial court imposing a sentence of death by hanging on the Appellant, was affirmed.

Appeal Dismissed.

Representation

Gbenga Akinde-Peters  for the Appellant.

Mitchel A. Aribisala for the Respondent.

Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)