MAIDUGURI V. THE STATE

• Pages: 223-228

MAIDUGURI V. THE STATE



223

MAIDUGURI V. THE STATE

5

MUHAMMED LAWAL MAIDUGURI

V

10 THE STATE

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

MADARIKAN,



J.S.C.

15 FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

13th June, 1969.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 26/1969

Criminal Law and Procedure - Murder - Extra judicial confession - Defence of

accidental killing - Trial within a trial - Decides only admissibility not weight

20





-

Failure to direct fitly accordingly - Duty of court to consider if defence

disclosed in evidence - Failure to consider defence of accused - Effect of.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a trial within trial can determine the probative value of a statement

25



objected to.

2.

Whether the court has jurisdiction to speculate in a murder trial, as to whether

a killing was accidental where no evidence was adduced to support that

contention.

FACTS:

30





At the trial of the Appellant for murder, a statement allegedly made by him in

Hausa to the Police when charged was sought to be tendered by the prosecution.

The accused objected that it was not admissible, on the ground that it was not a

voluntary statement as he did not understand 'Hausa'. The trial Judge who sat with

a jury held a trial within a trial in the absence of the jury to determine the issue of

35





admissibility. At the conclusion of the trial, he held that the statement was volun-

tary, and admitted the statement. The trial continued, and at the end of the case,

the trial Judge failed to leave to the jury the issue of fact which was raised again

by the defence that the appellant did not understand 'Hausa' and that consequent-

ly no weight should be attached to the statement. He also failed to submit the

40





defence of the appellant to the jury that the killing occurred in the course of a fight

i.e. as a result of provocation. There was however no evidence to suggest ac-

cidental killing.

On appeal against his conviction, it was submitted

(i)

that the trial Judge erred in law in failing to leave to the jury the issue whether

45





the appellant understood 'Hausa' and therefore the weight (if any) to attach

to the statement.

(ii)

that the trial Judge erred in law in not directing the jury to consider possible

defences of accidental killing and of provocation.

HELD:

50





1. A trial within a trial determines solely the issue of voluntariness (admissibility)

and not the probative value of the statement objected to: where the statement

is eventually admitted at the end of the trial within a trial, it might still be unsafe

to act upon it and it would still be open for the defence to ask the jury to

determine the weight and value of the statement.