KAMARU YUSUF V. THE STATE; ADEBISI ADESAKIN V. THE STATE (2019)

Background

This decision concerned two appeals arising from the same criminal trial before the High Court of Kwara State in Information No. KWS/17C/2008. Kamaru Yusuf and Adebisi Adesakin were charged jointly with conspiracy, kidnapping and culpable homicide in connection with the abduction and killing of Omobolanle Moses, an eight-year-old girl. The prosecution’s case was that the appellants consulted the third accused, Saliu Oyewole, in connection with money-making rituals. They were allegedly instructed to produce a human head, after which they abducted the deceased, strangulated her, severed her head and carried it in a polythene bag to the third accused. The third accused rejected the head as being too fresh and was subsequently discharged and acquitted by the trial court.

Both appellants made extra-judicial statements, admitted as Exhibits P11 and P8 respectively, after the trial court conducted separate trials within trial to determine whether the statements were made voluntarily. The trial court convicted both appellants and imposed custodial sentences for conspiracy and kidnapping, together with the death sentence for culpable homicide. The Court of Appeal dismissed their separate appeals, leading to the further appeals before the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the extra-judicial statements were properly admitted after the trials within trial and lawfully relied upon.
2. Whether the statements remained probative after the appellants retracted them in their testimony.
3. Whether the confession of one accused could be used as evidence against the other co-accused.
4. Whether the prosecution proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt and whether the Supreme Court should disturb the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that a trial within trial is a separate and distinct proceeding designed principally to determine the voluntariness of a confessional statement. The prosecution must establish that the statement was voluntarily made, while the accused is entitled to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, call evidence and address the court. Once the trial court has ruled that the statement was voluntary and has admitted it, the accused cannot casually challenge its voluntariness on an appeal from the substantive trial without directly impugning the ruling made in the trial within trial.

The Court further reaffirmed that a voluntary confession, if believed to be true, is legally capable of sustaining a conviction without corroboration. Corroborative evidence is nevertheless desirable where the accused subsequently retracts the confession. Retraction does not automatically render the statement worthless. The inconsistency rule applies where a witness gives oral evidence inconsistent with an earlier written statement within the same party’s case, but it does not operate to nullify a confession forming part of the prosecution’s case merely because the accused later gives contradictory defence testimony. The court must instead assess the confession alongside the retraction and the other evidence.

The Court also restated the rule that a confession is evidence against its maker alone. There can be no confession by proxy. However, the prosecution may independently prove the participation of a co-accused through other admissible evidence, including the circumstances of the offence, testimony of witnesses and physical discoveries.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found no procedural defect in the trials within trial. The appellants had opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses and present their cases, and neither demonstrated a denial of fair hearing or a miscarriage of justice. The rulings admitting Exhibits P11 and P8 therefore remained valid and binding, particularly because they had not been appealed or set aside.

The Court held that the confessional statements were strongly corroborated by independent evidence. The third accused confirmed that the appellants brought him a fresh human head in a polythene bag. The motorcycle rider testified that he conveyed both appellants to the relevant location and observed Kamaru Yusuf emerge from a bush with a polythene bag. Police evidence showed that the appellants confessed after arrest, and that Yusuf led the investigating team to locations connected with the disposal and recovery of the deceased’s head and body. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses was substantially unchallenged under cross-examination. The Court also noted that Yusuf made damaging admissions in his oral testimony, including that he strangulated the deceased and cut off her head.

The Court rejected the argument that the convictions were based solely on the confession of a co-accused. It characterized the relevant complaint as being founded on a phantom decision or ratio that did not exist in the Court of Appeal’s judgment. A ground of appeal and the issue derived from it must arise directly from the decision appealed against. An argument based on an imaginary decision is incompetent, reckless and an abuse of the court’s process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution proved the charges against each appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The concurrent findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeal were neither perverse nor unreasonable, and the appellants failed to show any substantial miscarriage of justice. Both appeals, SC.166/2012 and SC.168/2012, were dismissed. The convictions and sentences imposed on Kamaru Yusuf and Adebisi Adesakin were affirmed.

Significance

The case is significant for Nigerian criminal procedure because it clarifies the legal consequences of admitting a confessional statement after a trial within trial. It confirms that an accused who wishes to challenge voluntariness must directly contest the ruling admitting the statement. It also explains that retraction affects the weight and evaluation of a confession, not its automatic admissibility or legal existence. The decision reinforces the distinction between the evidential use of an accused person’s own confession and the inadmissible use of a co-accused’s confession against him without adoption or independent supporting evidence. Finally, it emphasizes the Supreme Court’s restraint in disturbing concurrent findings of fact and its disapproval of frivolous or recklessly formulated grounds of appeal.