OKE V REPUBLIC

• Pages: 76-81

76



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1967] N.S.C.C.

Appeal allowed.

5

OKE V REPUBLIC

SOLOMON OKE



APPELLANT

V



10

THE REPUBLIC



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 601/1966

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.



15

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

10th March, 1967

CriminalLaw - Defilement contrary to section 218 Criminal Code - Failure of

trial Court to take cognisance of material inconsistencies in evidence



20

Evidence - Corroboration - Whether silence by accused wizen cautioned or charged

can amount to corroboration - Whether silence wizen merely accused by

complainant can amount to corroboration - Need for trial Judge to state what

facts he relies on to constitute corroboration in a particular case - Implicating



25

statement made by accused to police constable - Accused taken before senior

police officer who asked him whether statement voluntary - Police Officer

signing statement but omitting to get accused to re-sign - Effect - Statement

of accused not admitted in evidence at the trial - Whether proper to reject

it - Supreme Court Act, section 26(1).



30

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a Judge in finding corroboration (where it is required) must state

exactly what he finds to be corroboration.

2.

Whether the fact that an accused did not re-sign his statement after being taken



35

before a superior police officer (who signed it himself after asking accused

whether the statement was voluntary) renders such statement inadmissible.

3.

Whether failure by the trial court to appreciate material inconsistencies in

evidence of a complainant will reverse the conviction.

FACTS:



40

The appellant was sentenced to five years imprisonment on a charge of defile-

ment of an eleven year old girl under Section 218 of the Criminal Code (this sec-

tion requires corroboration before conviction).

At the trial, the prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves on material

points in their evidence. When the self- incriminating statement of the appellant



45

was sought to be tendered in evidence, the trial Judge refused to admit it on the

ground that the senior police officer who verified from the appellant that the state-

ment was voluntary omitted to ask the accused to endorse his confirmation on the

statement.

In finding the appellant guilty the learned trial judge found in his judgment that



50

from the "abundant corroboration" the accused was guilty as charged. The judge

did not state in his judgment what he found to be corroboration.