In England, the manner in which
the police should take statements from persons connected with crimes is dealt
with in the Judges Rules. These rules were first formulated in 1912 by the
Judges at the request of the Home office and were revised in 1964. Essentially,
the rules are administrative directions and do not have the force of law. For
this reason, failure to observe any of them in the taking of a statement will
not necessarily render the statement inadmissible in evidence, although it may
do so – Nwaebonyi v. State (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 698 C.A; Ejinma v. State
(1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 627 SC; R. v. Viosin (1918) 1 K.B 531; R. v. Wattam
(1952) 36 Cr. App R. 72; R. v. Day (1952) 36 Cr. App. R. 91. The test
of admissibility even under the rules is whether the statement was made voluntarily
– R.
v. Day (supra); R. v. Prager (1972) 56 Cr. App. R. 151.
Rules 2 and 3 of the Judges Rules
appear to be the most commonly applied by police officers in Nigeria. As soon
as a police officer has evidence which would afford reasonable ground for
suspecting that a person has committed an offence, he shall caution that person
or cause him to be cautioned before putting to him any questions, or further
questions, relating to that offence. The caution shall be in the following
terms “you are not obliged to say
anything unless you wish to do so but whatever you say may be put into writing
and given in evidence” – Rule 2 of
Judges Rule. Where a person is
charged with or informed that he may be prosecuted for an offence he shall be
cautioned in the following terms “do you
wish to say anything? You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do
so but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in
evidence”.
After the above question, any
other one relating to the offence should not be put unless they are necessary
to prevent or minimize harm or loss to another person or to the public or to
clear up an ambiguity and in such cases a further caution is prescribed – Rule 3 of Judges Rules
If a suspect intends to write his own statement,
he should be asked to write and sign the following statement before he starts
writing out his statement: "I make
this statement of my own free will. I have been told that I need not say
anything unless I wish to do so and that whatever I say may be given in
evidence". And if it is written by a police officer the accused must
state at the end of the statement thus:
"I have read the above statement and I have been told that I can correct,
alter or add anything I wish. This statement is true. I have made it of my own
free will".
Persons other than police officers charged with
the duty of investigating offences must as much as possible comply with the
Judges' Rules. Apart from complying with the Judges' Rules, the Nigerian police
have evolved the practice of taking an accused person who has made a
confessional statement to a Superior Officer or a District Officer at the
earliest possible time for endorsement. This is to give the accused the
opportunity to deny or retract his statement. This practice has been highly
commended – R. v. Omorewere Sapele (1957) 2 FSC. 24; Nwigboke
v. R. (1959) 4 F.S.C 26; Adamu v. A-G. Bendel State (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 22) 284.
But in asking the accused to confirm or deny his statement taken
down in a language other than English, the proper thing to do is to read the
statement in its original form and not its English translation if the accused
is illiterate – R v. Nwangbo Igwe (1960) 5 FSC. 55.
It should be noted that where an interpreter is used in recording
an accused's confession such confession is inadmissible unless both the
interpreter and the person who recorded the statement are called as witness – Nwaeze
v. The State (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 428) P 1.
A confessional statement alone is sufficient to ground a
conviction once the court is satisfied with the truth of the confession. Yusufu
v. The State (1976) 6 SC 167.
However, the fact that a
confessional statement does not contain the usual cautionary words is not
enough reason not to admit it in evidence –
Nwaebonyi v. State (supra). In
Sunday
Onunga v. The State (1976) S & C. 169, the Supreme Court held that
a confession made without caution and even before the maker was charged with an
offence is admissible provided it was voluntary. Also, when a suspect or an
accused person who has been cautioned is making a statement, there is no need
to caution him again when he begins to make a confession –
Sangara v. The State (1965) 1 All
NLR 59.
Victor C. Ezekiel Esq, has many years experience in providing legal representation and advising clients across an exceptionally broad range of contentious and non-contentious matters. His main goal is to help clients resolve any contentious or non-contentious legal problem they are having rapidly and cost effectively.
Email: victorezekielc@gmail.com
Tel: +2348034997413
