FELIX OKPAKO V. THE STATE (2018)

Background

Felix Okpako was charged before the High Court of Delta State, Isiokolo Judicial Division, with the murder of Eloho Okpako, contrary to section 319(1) of the Criminal Code, Cap. 48, Volume II, Laws of the defunct Bendel State, applicable in Delta State. The prosecution’s case was that, following an altercation between the appellant and the deceased on 11 October 2002 at Oviore town, the deceased sustained a stab wound to the neck, collapsed and died. The prosecution called four witnesses and relied, among other evidence, on two statements attributed to the appellant.

The first statement, exhibit A, was admitted without objection. In it, the appellant admitted beating and hitting the deceased, after which she collapsed and he fled. The second statement, exhibit D, was challenged on the ground that it had been obtained through oppression, torture or duress. The trial court conducted a trial-within-trial, found that the statement was voluntary and admitted it in evidence. In exhibit D, the appellant made a direct admission that he used a kitchen knife to stab the deceased on the neck.

The appellant denied stabbing the deceased in his testimony at trial. He maintained that he merely punched her and did not know who caused the knife wound. The High Court rejected his testimony as an afterthought, found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to death by hanging. The Court of Appeal, Benin Division, affirmed the conviction and sentence. The appellant thereafter appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue

The principal issue was whether, having regard to the totality of the evidence, the lower courts were right to conclude that the prosecution proved the charge of murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. It held that a confessional statement is admissible where it is relevant and has not been excluded under section 29 of the Evidence Act. Where voluntariness is challenged, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was not obtained by oppression or by circumstances likely to render it unreliable. Once the trial court is satisfied that the statement was made voluntarily, the fact that it was recorded by a police officer or investigator, rather than written personally by the accused, does not make it inadmissible.

The Court further held that the question of who recorded a confessional statement is distinct from the weight to be attached to it. A statement may be admitted even where the accused disputes making it; the trial court must then assess its probative value in light of the surrounding circumstances. Once admitted, the confession becomes part of the prosecution’s case and the court is bound to consider it. A direct, positive and voluntary confession may, in law, sustain a conviction, including a conviction for murder, provided the ingredients of the offence are proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Findings

The Court applied the established tests for determining the truth of a confession: whether there is evidence outside the confession showing that it is true; whether it is corroborated; whether the facts stated can be tested and verified; whether the accused had the opportunity to commit the offence; whether the confession is possible; and whether it is consistent with other facts proved in the case.

Exhibit D satisfied these tests. The evidence of PW2, who conducted the post-mortem examination, established a stab wound at the anterior aspect of the neck which cut the left carotid artery and left jugular vein. The medical evidence showed that the deceased died from haemorrhage caused by those injuries. Exhibit A also placed the appellant with the deceased during the relevant altercation and established that he fled after she collapsed. The Court considered these facts independent circumstances corroborating the material aspects of exhibit D.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that exhibits A and D were irreconcilably inconsistent. Although exhibit A referred to beating and hitting while exhibit D described a stabbing, both statements implicated the appellant in the assault that culminated in the deceased’s death. The absence of an eyewitness did not weaken the prosecution’s case because circumstantial evidence may prove a fact with compelling certainty. The nature and location of the weapon injury also supported an inference of intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

The Court restated the three essential ingredients of murder: the death of the deceased; that the death was caused by the act of the accused; and that the act or omission causing death was intentional, with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence. It found all three ingredients proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal were supported by the evidence and were not perverse. There was no wrong approach to law, miscarriage of justice or other exceptional circumstance warranting appellate interference. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of death by hanging were affirmed. The Court made no order as to costs.

Significance

The decision confirms the Nigerian courts’ careful but established approach to confessional and circumstantial evidence in criminal trials. It illustrates that a voluntary confession need not be recorded personally by the accused, that corroboration is desirable though not invariably indispensable, and that medical and surrounding evidence can provide the external confirmation needed to establish reliability. It also reinforces the strong presumption against disturbing concurrent findings of fact where the lower courts properly evaluated the evidence and applied the correct legal principles.