(Supra) unlike in the present appeal, there was no other version of the Appellant's statement the
voluntariness and authenticity of which the Appellant therein admitted from which the unsigned
statement was recorded. The fact that the Appellant herein does not contend that the contents of
Exhibit A are at variance with the contents of Exhibit A1 which he made and signed, nor challenge the
contents of Exhibit A1, further renders the decision in OGUDO's case (Supra) inapplicable to this case.
Furthermore, as it is with an objection to the voluntariness of a confessional statement, the proper time
and stage to raise the question of non-signing of a confessional statement is at the time it is sought to
be tendered in evidence by the prosecution. This, the Courts have repeatedly stated in a plenitude of
judicial authorities. See MUHAMMAD VS THE STATE (2017) LPELR 42098 (SC); IKEMSON VS THE STATE
(1989) 3 NWLR (PT. 110) 455." Per WAMBAI, J.C.A. (Pp. 21-22, Paras. B-E) (...read in context)
5. EVIDENCE - CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: The position of the law on a retracted statement
"...The Appellant has however resiled from this statement in his evidence in Court. That
notwithstanding, a denial or retraction of a confessional statement does not affect its admissibility. See
SULE VS THE STATE (2009) LPELR - 3125 (SC); OSENI VS THE STATE (SUPRA). However, the Courts have
enjoined, as decided in R VS SYKES (1913) 8 CAR 233, on trial Courts, to look for some other evidence no
matter how slight outside the confession which will vindicate its veracity; whether it is corroborated in
any way; whether its contents are true; whether the accused had the opportunity to commit the offence
charged; whether the confession is possible and consistent with other facts which have been proved.
See KAREEM VS FRN (2002) 8 NLWR (PT. 770) 664; OSETOLA & ANOR VS THE STATE (2012) LPELR 9348."
Per WAMBAI, J.C.A. (Pp. 25-26, Paras. D-B) (...read in context)
6. EVIDENCE - CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: Whether a confessional statement must be recorded in the
language in which it is made for it to be admissible
"Exhibit A1, as is highly recommended, was recorded in the language of the Appellant, the Hausa
Language. The wisdom for this as reasoned in OLANIPEKUN VS THE STATE (2016) LPELR - 40440 (SC) per
Aka'ahs JSC, is to avoid technical arguments which could be raised. Though not an invariable practice, it
is to ensure the correctness and accuracy of the statement made by the accused person. Exhibit A1 is for
that purpose." Per WAMBAI, J.C.A. (Pp. 19-20, Paras. E-A) (...read in context)