No. It is the law that a witness who is in court based only on a subpoena duces tecum is not liable to give evidence on oath or be cross examined. OLANIYAN V. OYEWOLE (2005)5 NWLR (PT. 1079)114; MBAT v. HON. MIN, FCDA (2018) HELAR
No. It is the law that a witness who is in court based only on a subpoena duces tecum is not liable to give evidence on oath or be cross examined. OLANIYAN V. OYEWOLE (2005)5 NWLR (PT. 1079)114; MBAT v. HON. MIN, FCDA (2018) HELAR
No. In practice, Magistrate courts would usually, to secure the attendance of a witness to court, issue a Witness Summons. While a High Court can equally issue a witness summons, it is only a High court that has power to Subpoena a witness. POLIC E V. YANE (1949) 19 NLR 66
Confessional Statement is the admission by the suspect either orally or in writing that he committed the offence charged. The Confession can be judicial or extra judicial and both, when shown to have come out of the Defendant voluntarily, will be admitted as evidence and used in the trial. The Courts have held, in a long list of decisions, including the one in the case of EMEKA V. STATE (2001) FWLR (PT.66) 682 that a confession alone even without corroboration (except in some particular nature of cases), can support a conviction as long as the court is satisfied of the voluntariness and truth of it. MUHAMMADU V THE STATE (2020) HELAR; MUHAMMAD V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR
Yes, by virtue of Section 245 (2) of the ACJA 2015, the witness arrested under this circumstance shall have and enjoy the right relating to Bail as provided for under the Act
A subpoena simply put is an order of court for a person to attend court sitting on a particular day and time. There are three types of subpoena which are:
a. Subpoena Ad Testificandum: this is an order for a person to attend court and give evidence.
b. Subpoena duces tecum: this is an order for a person to attend court and bring with him documentary evidence before it for tendering.
c. Subpoena duces tecum et ad testificandum: this is used where it is intended to call the person to testify and also to tender documents in his possession in court.
OLANIYAN V. OYEWOLE (2008) 5 NWLR (PT.1079) 114; EDOHO V. A.G. V. AKWA IBOM STATE (1996) 1 NWLR (PT.425); LASUN V. AWOYEMI (2009) 16 NWLR (PT.1168) 513. MBAT v. HON. MIN, FCDA (2018) HELAR
Where a person disobeys a witness summons or a subpoena, he is deemed to be guilty of contempt of court and can be so punished accordingly. SECTION 246 (1) OF ACJA 2015
A Warrant is usually used when a person fails to honour a witness summons or a subpoena. However, the court may also issue a warrant to issue the attendance of a witness to court in the first instance, where by proof on oath, it is shown that the person needed to give evidence that is material, either for the prosecution or for the defence, but there is a reasonable belief that he will not attend to give evidence without being compelled to do so. SECTION 243 AND 244 OF THE ACJA 2015
The practice is that the party who seeks the attendance of a person in court as a witness but not certain that the witness would come of his own will, will apply to the register of court to issue the summons by which the person is directed, with the force of the law, to attend the court sitting on the designated date, upon payment of the assessed fees by the prosecution. SECTION 241 (1) OF THE ACJA 2015
The service of a witness summons is by personal service. Where the prosecution seeks by any other means, it must seek the leave of court before the service can be said to be valid. SECTION 241 (1) OF THE ACJA 2015.
Yes, where the prosecutor is a person other than a law officer or public officer, the person served with such a witness summons may insist on his travel cost being paid before he can attend court sitting. SECTION 241(2) ACJA, 2015
Yes, once arrested, the person is to come before a magistrate who may, on his furnishing security by recognizance to the satisfaction of the Magistrate for his appearance at the hearing, order him to be released. Where this, for any reason, is not the case, the court will order that he be remanded till the date fixed for hearing. Again, where the defendant is also in detention, the witness shall not be kept in the same room with the defendant and shall not be allowed to contact him. SECTION 245(1) & (3) ACJA, 2015.
The subject or issue of Evidence Law is a Federal matter and it is regulated by an Act of the National Assembly. So, the Evidence Act, an enactment of the NASS is the relevant and applicable law according to Section 1(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011, Cap E14, LFN, 2004; To all judicial proceedings in or before any court established in the Federal Republic of Nigeria, except:
(a) To proceedings before an arbitrator; or
(b) To a field general court-martial; or
(c) To judicial proceedings in any civil cause or matter in or before any Sharia Court of Appeal, Customary Court of Appeal, Area Court or Customary Court unless the President, or Governor of a State, by order published in the Gazette, confers upon any or all Sharia Courts of Appeal, Customary Courts of Appeal, Area Courts or Customary Courts in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja or a State, as the case may be, power to enforce any or all the provisions of this Act.
All the previous NASS enactments as Evidence Acts, have always operated as the relevant Federal law applicable to all the Courts of Nigeria, in civil and criminal causes, except as by the Acts itself, exempted (as above highlighted under S. 1(2) of the Act). By virtue of Section 255 of the ACJA 2015, which is subject to any other relevant law, the Evidence Act is very relevant in the examination of witnesses in a criminal trial. That is to say, the examination of witnesses must be in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt entails proof that contains a high degree of cogency, consistent with an equally high degree of probability. It does not mean such proof as erases all and every shadow of doubt. Once the level of proof gets to the level where whatever defence being put across by the defence can be dismissed with such comment as “It is possible but not in the least probable” then that level of proof beyond reasonable doubt would have been achieved. Of course, this level of requirement is way above what obtains in civil matters where the requirement is based on a Balance of Probabilities or Preponderance of Evidence. MILLER V. MINISTER OF PENSIONS (1947) 2 ALLER 372; BAKARE V. STATE (1987) 1 NWLR (PT.52) 579. EWUGBA V. THE STATE (2017) HELAR; IBRAHIM V C.O.P (2020) HELAR
Generally, yes, he who alleges has the burden at all times, to prove. But, like it is stated, the Prosecution’s burden stops at his proving the case of the commission of a crime. After that the evidential burden will now shift to the defendant to prove the existence of a reasonable doubt. That is why it is important to distinguish between General Burden and Evidential Burden. While the general burden refers to the obligation or responsibility to establish a case, evidential burden is the obligation or responsibility to bring evidence in proof of a particular fact. SECTION 135 (3) EVIDENCE ACT, CAP.E12, LFN, 2011. ABDULLAHI V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR; MUHAMMAD V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR
The onus of proof placed on the prosecution can be discharged through any of these means;
a) Confessional Statement of the Defendant
b) Eye witness account
c) Circumstantial Evidence. EMEKA V. STATE (2001) FWLR (PT.66) 682; ADEHI V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR; TOPE V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR
The Statement you signed is a confessional Statement. A confessional Statement is a statement by an accused person charged with an offence stating that he committed the offence and for it to be validly admitted, it must be voluntary. Once a confessional Statement is in evidence, it becomes part of the case of the prosecution which the court is bound to consider provided that it admits all the essential elements of the offence charged and when tested against proven facts will show that the accused person or persons committed the offence. See BASSEY V. STATE [2012] ALL FWLR (PT. 633) 1817. Where the accused person contends that he did not make the confessional statement voluntarily, that is to say the statement was made under duress or threat, it means that a great cloud of doubt of its veracity and credibility has been cast upon it. What the court does, usually would be to direct that a Trial-Within-Trial be conducted. OGUDU V. STATE [2012] ALL FWLR (PT. 629) 1111. UJANG V. THE STATE (2017) HELAR.
Yes, usually a suspect would be cautioned to remain silent because whatever he says would be used against him in the Court of Law. However, even where the caution was not given and the defendant makes a confessional statement in the presence of the Police officer(s), that statement, though extra judicial, would be used against him in court even as the court will always ensure it was voluntarily made and is credible, unequivocal and admitting the essential elements of the offence charged. ONUGWA V. STATE (1976) 2SC 169. AKIBU V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR
Where the defendant has objected to the admissibility of the confessional statement sought to be tendered, on the ground of involuntariness of same, the Court would stop all proceedings and conduct a Trial Within Time. Here the Court will call on the prosecution to prove that the statement was made voluntarily by calling witnesses who shall be cross examined by the defence. The burden is on the prosecution, and it’s standard of establishment of the voluntariness of the statement is the one of beyond all reasonable doubt. After this, the defence shall lead its own evidence and the parties shall finally address the Court on the said issues. The Court shall rule one way or the other before the proceedings shall continue.
The court would be wrong to reserve its ruling on this and proceed to hearing the trial of the charge or charges, and say it will give its ruling on the trial-within-trial at the end of the full trial, along with its judgment on the matter. IBEME V. THE STATE (2013)10 NWLR (PT. 1362) 333. UJANG V. THE STATE (2017) HELAR
It is the law that he who asserts must prove. Therefore, since the prosecution is the one seeking to tender the statement as evidence, and impliedly saying that same was made voluntarily, it must prove it and also, to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. ** EFFIONG V. THE STATE (1998) 5SCNJ 158. UJANG V. THE STATE (2017) HEL
No, a defendant confesses only to his own guilt. His confession cannot be the confession of all the defendants, except a defendant who also admits and aligns himself to the confession of that co-defendant. MBANG V. STATE [2010] ALL FWLR (PT. 508)379. OWOLABI V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR
A plea of guilt is superior in the hierarchy of evidence and evidential value. A plea of guilty is an admission of guilt, as it is said, “from the horse’s mouth” and so placed above the testimony of an eye witness. It also ranks above the confessional statement of the Defendant. BABANGIDA V. REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2017) ALL FWLR (PT. (914) 1028 CA.
An eye witness is that person who was present at the scene of crime on the day and time the charged offence was committed and who saw and heard the happenings of the day or moment as they occurred. ORJI V. F. R. N (2019) HELAR
A Confessional Statement is an admission of guilt made by the Defendant any time before the trial while a Plea of Guilty is an admission of guilt at the arraignment of the Defendants. Essentially, both will lead to the same end even if the path to that end is slightly different as herein pointed out. BABANGIDA V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2017)ALL FWLR (PT. 914) 1028 CA. ORJI V. F. R. N (2019) HELAR; MUHAMMAD V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR
Circumstantial evidence is the evidence adduced based on the facts surrounding the act of the committal of an offence. To ground a conviction the combination of those circumstantial evidence must point only to one conclusion which is that the defendant committed the offence. ADESINA V. STATE (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429 AT 448; IGABELE V. STATE (2006) ALL FWLR (PT.311) 1797; DADA V. THE STATE (2017) HELAR; ABELEGAH V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR
A defendant would need to challenge the voluntariness of a confessional statement made by him immediately the prosecution seeks to tender the statement as evidence, not after it has been admitted or on appeal after conviction at the trial court. Any such later challenge or denial would be taken as a mere after-thought. USUNG V. STATE [2009] ALL FWLR (PT. 462) 1203. UJANG V. THE STATE (2017) HELAR.
This is when the Defendant denies ever making the confessional statement or says that he was not the one who signed it, or that the statement he made has been altered or says that the oral statement was wrongly reduced into writing. Here the court will not grant an application not to admit same as evidence. The mere retraction of a confessional statement does not affect the admissibility of the confessional statement. SEE SULE V. THE STATE [2009] ALL FWLR (PT. 481) 809. However, the retraction of a statement would affect the weight that would be attached to the evidence. The court would usually need the confessional statement to be further corroborated. The Court would also look at any evidence of retraction coming from the Defence. Here there would not be any need for a trial within trial. SEE ADISA V. THE STATE [2015] ALL FWLR (PT. 766) 525. IBRAHIM V C.O.P (2020) HELAR
No, the statement apart from being made voluntarily, must be made by the defendant himself, it must be unequivocal, positive and direct and precisely pointing to the defendant committing the crime, and must contain the admission of both the actus reus and the mens rea where mens rea is a necessary element. AFOLABI V. POLICE, (1961)1 ALL NLR654; OMISADE &ORS. V. QUEEN (1964) 1 ALL NLR233. AKIBU V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR
Yes, where the circumstantial evidence is strong, cogent, compelling and leading to one conclusion that the defendant indeed committed the offence, the Court can convict him based on that. Sound and credible circumstantial evidence is highly rated because, unlike eye-witness evidence that may stand alone, and is more vulnerable to manipulation, circumstantial evidence are usually different inter-corroborating pieces of evidence pointing to one thing
Where you have good circumstantial evidence there may be no further need for an eye-witness account. MUDASIRU V. STATE [2012] ALL FWLR (PT. 626) 583; ADESINA V. STATE (2012) 14 NWLR (PT.1321) 429 AT 448; IGABELE V. STATE (2006) ALL FWLR (PT.311) 1797. DADA V. THE STATE (2017) HELAR; ABELEGAH V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR