The following are the goals of a Pre-Trial investigation; whether an offence was actually committed or not; the circumstances under which it was allegedly committed, the people that took part or were connected with the commission of the offence, the extent of the injury or danger done or caused by the offence, whether the suspect received any benefit from the alleged offence, what the victim/complainant wants etc.
Yes, there are constitutional rights and safeguards available to a suspect which protects him from persecution by the prosecuting authorities. They are the following;
a)Right to remain silent or avoid answering questions until after consultation with his Legal Practitioner or any other person of his own choice -s.35(2) of 1999 CFRN.
b)Right to be informed in writing of the reason for his arrest within 24 hours and in the language he understands - s.35 (3)1999 CFRN.
c)Right to be brought before a court of law within a reasonable time- s.35 (4) of CFRN.
d)Right to bail - s.35(4) 1999 CFRN
e)Right to personal liberty and the exceptions- s.35(1) 1999CFRN.
f)Right to dignity of human person- s.34(1)(a) of 1999 CFRN
g)Right to an interpreter. S.36(6)(e) 1999 CFRN
The various laws regulating criminal litigation in Nigeria contemplate such a circumstance and are in consensus that where a suspect volunteers to make a confessional statement, same shall be recorded on video and in the absence of video facility, the statement shall be in writing and in the presence of a Legal Practitioner of his choice - S.9 (3) ACJL, Lagos. See also S.15 (1), (4) ACJA.
The various laws regulating criminal litigation in Nigeria contemplate such a circumstance and are in consensus that where a suspect volunteers to make a confessional statement, same shall be recorded on video and in the absence of video facility, the statement shall be in writing and in the presence of a Legal Practitioner of his choice - S.9 (3) ACJL, Lagos. See also S.15 (1), (4) ACJA.
Where a suspect does not understand, speak, or write in English Language, an interpreter shall record and read over the statement to the suspect to his understanding and the suspect shall endorse the statement as having been made by him, and the interpreter shall attest to the making of the station. The interpreter shall endorse his name, address, occupation, designation or other particulars on the statement. See s.40 ACJL Kano, s.17 (3) ACJA
A confession is a voluntary admission by a person of his participation in a crime. S.28 of the Evidence Act defines it as an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime. A confessional statement may be judicial (formal), that is when defendant pleads guilty to a charge. It may also be extra-judicial (informal). These are confessions usually made in the course of investigation.
Admissibility of confessional statement depends on how it was obtained and not whether it is true or not. Once the confession is made in a free atmosphere and it is direct, unequivocal, positive and properly proved, it can sustain a conviction without any corroborative evidence - State v Salawu (2011)
These circumstances are provided for in S.29(2) Evidence Act and are thus; the confession is obtained by “oppression (defined as torture, inhuman treatment or threat of violence) of the person who made it” or “In consequence of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstance existing at the time to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him.”
When such an objection is raised against the voluntariness of the Confessional Statement, the court ought not to accept the confession in evidence but conduct a trial-within-trial to ascertain whether or not the statement was voluntarily made. Since the burden to prove that the statement was made voluntarily is on the prosecution, the prosecution will be called upon to open the trial-within-trial- see S.29 (3) Evidence Act.
In such a case, Mr Tijani’s objection is a “retraction”. This may arise in several ways such as; he denies that the signature belongs to him, the statement was not properly recorded or was altered etc. In such circumstance the judge may admit the alleged confessional statement when it is tendered and decide on determine the weight to be attached such statement. The court has a duty to determine at the conclusion of the case whether or not the defendant made the statement –Sule v State (2009)
No, his contentions are not in agreement with the position of the law. A confessional statement is only admissible against the maker and no other person. As such it cannot be used to convict an accomplice. See Mbang v. State (1966), Ozaki v. The State (1990) S.29 Evidence Act.
It is a defence put up by a defendant that as at the time the alleged offence was committed, he was somewhere else. The accused would be contending that it would be physically impossible for him to commit the alleged crime. State v Azeez (2008)
The defence of alibi must be promptly raised, that is during investigation when a defendant is confronted with the commission of the offence so that the Police will have the opportunity to investigate the defence. The relevant particulars to be provided are where he was,the time, the persons he was with and who could testify that he was there at the time. See State v Azeez (2008).
What should follow after is for the police or other law enforcement agencies to investigate the alibi and determine it’s truthfulness or otherwise. The burden is on the prosecution to disprove it- Atta v The State (2010)
the court may hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This is because the failure by the Police to investigate an alibi properly and timeously put up by a defendant would raise doubt in the mind of the court and must in appropriate cases lead to the quashing of a conviction imposed in disregard of this requirement. See Onafowokan v The State (1987)
In such a circumstance the prosecution would not have the opportunity to investigate and would therefore be entitled to rely on the evidence of its witnesses to disprove the alibi. Where the prosecution adduces sufficient, accepted and credible evidence to fix the defendant at the scene of the crime at the material time, the defence would logically be demolished. See Onyegbu v The State (1995)
Identification parade is only necessary where the victim did not know the defendant and was confronted by the offender for a very short time and in which time and circumstances he might not have had full opportunity of observing the features of the defendant. But will not be necessary where the witness knows the accused before the incident, the accused is apprehended at the scene of the crime or where the accused confesses to committing the crime. See Nwaturuocha v The State (2011)
There are no specific laws regarding the conduct of an identification parade however Police Manual for Basic and Advanced Studies, Police College, provides some guidance;
a)the suspect is planted in the midst of persons not less than 8 (If two or more suspects, 12 people including the suspects), of similar or closely similar description in height, complexion, appearance, age, class or status in life with the suspect.
b)If suspect has special features, members of the parade are dressed the same way,
c)The suspect is at liberty to chose his position on the line and can change position after each witness has left.
d)Evidence of parade is given in court by the Police officer that conducted the parade. The witness gives evidence that he identified the defendant.
Items seized by the Police Officers in the course of conducting a search or other criminal investigations are kept in an exhibit room and managed by an exhibit keeper. There is an exhibit list and register where all exhibits are recorded. If exhibit is not properly handled, there may be objection to its admissibility.
In such a circumstance Mr Johnson is entitled to be released on bail by the Police if he cannot be brought before a court having jurisdiction with respect to the offence allegedly committed by the suspect unless the offence is capital in nature of which they are not empowered to grant or the investigation cannot be completed forthwith. See section 17 (1), (2) ACJL Lagos, section 30 (1), 31 (1) ACJA
Mr Johnson may apply either to the State High Court or Federal High Court within the State where he is detained under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 to enforce his right to liberty-Section 46(1) of the CFRN. He can apply to the High Court by way of writ of Habeas Corpus. This is a writ directed to the authority to bring the detainee to court. He May apply to a Magistrate to secure his release. See section 18 ACJL Lagos, section 32 (1) ACJA.