A’Court Invalidates Suspect’s Confessional Statements Without Choice Counsel Present

The Lagos Division of the Appeal Court has ruled that any confessional statements made by suspects in the absence of their chosen legal counsel are deemed null and void.

A three-man panel led by Justice Abdulazeez M. Anka, made the above decision on November 29, 2024, while delivering judgment in an appeal marked CA/LAG/CR/546/2022, filed by an appellant, Sesebor Abiodun, against the Federal government of Nigeria, challenging the admissibility of his confessional statements by the Federal High Court, Lagos.

In the suit, the appellant, Sesebor through his lawyer, Victor Opara (SAN) had argued that his confessional statements was taken in the presence of a lawyer, Adeniyi Adebisi, provided for him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

In urging the court to expunge the admitted confessional statements from the court’s record, Opara (SAN) while cited plethoras of authorites, listed eight grounds of appeal, as well formulated eight issues for determination.

However, the EFCC through it’s lawyer, Bilikisu Buhari-Bala, while urged the court to refuse the appeal, raised a sole issue for determination.

In deciding the appeal, Justice Anka after evaluating the parties submissions, and the cited plethoras of authorites, agreed with the appellant’s counsel, Opara (SAN) that the EFCC had violated the legal rights of the appellant, Sesebor, whose confessions were made without the presence of lawyer of his choice.

Justice Anka in his lead judgment held that: “From the above quoted evidence, it is obvious the record of the trial court counters the decision/holding of the trial Judge that the appellant never mentioned being promised “star witness.” I agree with the learned senior Advocate that the trial Judge misapprehended the true state of evidence before him and thereby, came to a wrong conclusion in admitting exhibits M1, M2 and M3, and thus occasioning a miscarriage of justice and I so hold.

“The trial court did not properly evaluate the evidence before it so as to ascribe probative value to same in order to reach a just decision. This error in my view also occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

“From all that I am stating above, I hold that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt the voluntariness of the said statements admitted at the trial court. In the circumstance this appeal succeeds while the decision of the trial court admitting the statements of the Appellant made at the EFCC office is accordingly set aside. Hence, exhibit M1, M2 and M3 are accordingly expunged from the record of the court.”

On the matter to be reassigned to the another judge, Justice Anka held that: “As regards the application of the Appellant’s counsel for reassignment of the case to another Judge of the trial court, the Appellant’s counsel has not proffered any reasons nor convincing arguments why this court shall order a re-assignment of the case file to another Judge.

“There is no any feature in the decision of my Lord Kwewuml J. that seems to have justified any order of this court for any re-assignment. The trial Judge did not make any statement perhaps for example which one may read and come to a conclusion that the court must have made a substantive decision at interlocutory stage. Non-evaluation of evidence before the trial court as found in this court’s decision cannot suffice to justify any order for transfer.

“The trial court has not predetermined any substantive issue live In the main trial at the trial within trial nor in the court’s ruling. Hence the application for re-assignment of the case file is hereby refused the Appellant.

“The trial court Coram Babs Kuewumi J. shall continue to conduct the proceedings in Suit FHC/L/145C/2016 until final determination.

“The application for reassignment is accordingly refused.”

Other Justices of the panel, Paul Ahmed Bassi and Ngozika Okasiabor, also agreed with Justice Anka’s decisions.