ENDURANCE MATTHEW V. THE STATE (2018)

Background

Endurance Matthew was arraigned before the High Court of Delta State, Ughelli Judicial Division, on a charge of murder contrary to section 319(1) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 48, applicable in Delta State. The prosecution alleged that on 26 January 2006, at Ekrenhavwe village, the appellant threw her approximately one-month-old baby, Omonefe Oviefe, into a water-filled well. The child drowned and died. The alleged reason was that the father had rejected the child.

The prosecution relied substantially on the evidence of three witnesses, including PW1, who arrived at the scene shortly after the incident and heard the appellant admit that she had thrown the baby into the well because the child’s father had rejected it. The prosecution also tendered Exhibit A, a written statement made by the appellant at the police station. The appellant challenged the voluntariness of Exhibit A, leading to a trial-within-trial. The trial court found the statement voluntary and admitted it in evidence. It subsequently convicted the appellant and sentenced her to death by hanging. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence, prompting the further appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue

The principal issue was whether, having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Court of Appeal was right to affirm the trial court’s finding that the prosecution proved the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Appellant’s Arguments

The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove that she caused the child’s death and that she possessed the intention required for murder. She contended that none of the prosecution witnesses directly saw her throw the baby into the well. Counsel further argued that PW1’s account of the alleged oral confession was hearsay and that the confession, having been retracted, required independent corroboration. It was also submitted that the evidence of PW1 was not challenged in cross-examination in a manner capable of supporting a conviction and that the medical evidence could establish only the cause of death, not the identity of the person responsible.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that the prosecution had proved all three ingredients of murder under section 319(1) of the Criminal Code: first, that the deceased died; second, that the death was caused by the accused; and third, that the accused intended to kill the deceased or cause grievous bodily harm.

The Court reaffirmed that an oral confession is admissible in evidence just as a written confession is. A voluntary confession is an admission of guilt and is relevant against its maker, though not ordinarily against other persons. Where the confession is positive, direct, voluntary and unequivocal, it may, by itself, sustain a conviction. The absence of a formal caution before an admission is made does not necessarily deprive the admission of relevance.

The Court further held that retraction or denial of a confession affects the weight to be attached to it, not its admissibility. Nevertheless, where a confession has been retracted, it is desirable for the court to seek corroborative evidence from other established facts. In this case, the surrounding circumstances, the discovery of the child’s lifeless body in the well, PW1’s testimony, the medical evidence and the contents of Exhibit A provided sufficient confirmation of the confession.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court rejected the contention that PW1’s evidence was hearsay. PW1 gave direct evidence of what the appellant personally told him. The fact that PW1 did not witness the physical act of throwing the baby into the well did not make his evidence inadmissible, because his testimony concerned the appellant’s own admission. The Court also placed significance on the appellant’s failure to cross-examine PW1 on the alleged confession. Where a witness gives a positive and credible account of an essential fact, and that account is neither challenged nor contradicted, a trial court is generally entitled to accept it, provided it is not inherently improbable.

On intention, the Court applied the principle that a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of a voluntary act. Throwing a one-month-old baby into a water-filled well was an act from which an intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm could readily be inferred. The appellant’s stated motive—that the child’s father had rejected the baby—did not constitute a defence to murder.

The Court also emphasized its settled reluctance to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the Court of Appeal. Such findings will ordinarily stand unless shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, or productive of a miscarriage of justice. The appellant failed to establish any such defect.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and upheld the appellant’s conviction for murder and the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Significance

The decision confirms the strong evidential value of confessions in Nigerian criminal proceedings, including oral confessions proved through the testimony of persons who heard them. It also clarifies that a retracted confession is not automatically excluded from evidence. Although corroboration is particularly desirable in such circumstances, a properly admitted and credible confession may sustain a conviction. The case additionally restates the statutory ingredients of murder and the limited circumstances in which the Supreme Court will disturb concurrent findings of fact.