MATTHEW V. STATE (2026)

Background

Pere Matthew, the appellant, was the third accused person charged alongside two others before the High Court of Rivers State, Port Harcourt, for conspiracy and murder contrary to sections 324 and 319 of the Criminal Code Law, Cap. 37, Vol. 2, Laws of Rivers State, 1999. The prosecution alleged that on 24 August 2010, at the Approved Schools Field, Borokiri, Port Harcourt, the appellant and his co-accused arrived in a vehicle and opened fire on Soboma George and Joy John Ejims while the victims were at a groundnut stall. Both victims died from the shooting, while Soboma George’s aide, Emmanuel George, was shot in the arm.

The appellant and the other accused persons were later arrested at a hiding place in Ondo State, and the vehicle allegedly used in the crime was recovered. The prosecution called three witnesses, including Emmanuel George, who testified as an eyewitness and identified the appellant as one of the shooters. The prosecution also tendered the appellant’s extra-judicial statement, a video recording of the police interview, and other documentary and physical exhibits.

The trial court admitted the appellant’s confessional statement after conducting a trial-within-trial. It found the statement voluntary, direct, positive and consistent with the established facts. Applying the recognised six-way test for assessing a retracted confession, the court relied on the statement together with the eyewitness evidence and video recording to convict the appellant and impose the death sentence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision. The appellant consequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to uphold the admission, evaluation and use of the appellant’s confessional statement.
2. Whether the appellant’s defence of alibi was properly rejected.
3. Whether the prosecution proved the offences of conspiracy and murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. It held that a confessional statement is not automatically invalidated merely because the accused later retracts or denies it. Retraction affects the weight or probative value of the statement, not necessarily its admissibility. Where the statement is direct, positive and unequivocal, and is corroborated by credible evidence, the court may rely on it to sustain a conviction.

The Court further held that the appellant’s admission that he signed the statement effectively established his connection with it. In criminal trials, section 95 of the Evidence Act 2011, which generally requires documents in civil proceedings to be tendered by their makers, does not impose an equivalent requirement in criminal proceedings. Objections to an extra-judicial statement ordinarily arise where the accused denies making it or admits making it but challenges its voluntariness on grounds such as duress, inducement or promise.

A trial-within-trial is a separate proceeding concerned principally with the voluntariness and admissibility of a statement. Evidence given in that distinct proceeding cannot simply be imported into the main trial as substantive evidence. The appellant also failed to challenge, by an appropriate appeal, the trial court’s interlocutory decision finding the statement voluntary. His failure to appeal that decision signified acquiescence and prevented him from belatedly attacking it before the Supreme Court.

Court Findings

The Court held that an alibi means that an accused was elsewhere when the offence was committed. An accused relying on alibi must raise it at the earliest opportunity and provide sufficient particulars of his whereabouts, the place concerned and the persons with whom he was present. Although the prosecution bears the duty to investigate and disprove a properly raised alibi, that duty does not arise in any meaningful sense where the accused supplies no useful particulars.

The appellant raised his alibi for the first time while testifying at trial. He merely stated that he was in Bayelsa State recovering from an accident, without providing a specific address, identifying the people with him or giving information capable of investigation. The Court regarded the defence as belated and lacking in substance. In any event, the eyewitness testimony of PW1 positively placed the appellant at the scene and destroyed the alibi.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that criminal guilt may be established through a confessional statement, circumstantial evidence or eyewitness testimony. In this case, the prosecution relied on two forms: the appellant’s confessional statement and the eyewitness evidence of PW1, supported by the video recording. Minor discrepancies concerning whether a victim bought or was asked to buy groundnuts, and the colour of the vehicle, were held immaterial because they did not affect the essential facts or the ingredients of the offences.

The Court also held that medical evidence is not indispensable in every murder trial. Where the circumstances establish an obvious cause of death, the absence of a medical report or pathologist’s testimony does not necessarily create reasonable doubt. Finally, the Court emphasised that an appellate court need not answer every ancillary submission in counsel’s brief seriatim. It is sufficient to address the material issues necessary for determining the appeal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal. The conviction and sentence of death for conspiracy and murder were affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Significance

The decision reinforces important Nigerian criminal-law principles concerning retracted confessions, the timing and particulars required for an alibi, the limited role of appellate courts in reviewing factual findings, and the evidential sufficiency of eyewitness and confessional evidence. It also confirms that a murder conviction does not invariably depend on medical testimony where the cause of death is apparent from the totality of the evidence.