Full Facts in R v.Akpon Umo & Ors (1944)
The appellants—Jackson Akpon Umo, Aaron Umo, Mbo Adiaha Uko, and Anson Akpan were charged before the High Court, Calabar-Aba Division, with the murder of Ntia Adiaha Uko on the night of 22nd November 1943, in Uruk Uso, Abak Division, Calabar Province.
The killing was committed with machetes. All four defendants were convicted and sentenced to death by Jackson, Assistant Judge.
During the investigation, Police Constable John Okereke obtained statements from each accused. After taking the first statement, he sequentially took statements from the others, and, as he admitted in court, read each defendant the statements made by the others.
This procedure was in direct contravention of Rule 8 of the Judges’ Rules, as applied to illiterates, which had been clarified in Rex v. Afose & Ors (2 W.A.C.A. 118). According to the Rule:
“When two or more persons are charged with the same offence and statements are taken separately from the persons charged, the police should not read these statements to the other persons charged. Each person should be furnished with a copy, and nothing should be done to invite a reply. For illiterates, a statement may be read or interpreted by someone other than a policeman, but anything said by the accused during that reading shall not be admissible unless the usual caution is administered.”
The appellants argued on appeal that the statements were improperly admitted in evidence due to this breach.
Parties to an Offence under Section 7 of Nigerian Criminal Law with Judicial Pronouncements
LEGAL ISSUE IN R v.Akpon Umo & Ors (1944)
Whether statements obtained in contravention of the Judges’ Rules, as applied to illiterates, are admissible in criminal trials.
HELD:
1.Statements obtained contrary to the Judges’ Rules are not automatically inadmissible.
2.Such statements may be admitted if the trial judge, exercising judicial discretion, is satisfied that they were made voluntarily.
Judicial Reasoning (Dicta): R v.Akpon Umo & Ors (1944)
The Court referenced Rex v. Voisin (1918 1 K.B. 531), which emphasized that while police should enforce the Judges’ Rules strictly, statements obtained in breach of the Rules could still be admissible if voluntarily made. The Court stated:
“Statements obtained from prisoners contrary to the spirit of these Rules may be rejected, but they do not become automatically inadmissible; they will be admitted if the trial judge decides, in his discretion, that they were voluntarily made.”
In the present case, the trial judge had carefully examined whether the statements were voluntary. He concluded:
“I was satisfied that all the statements were made freely and voluntarily and for no reason activated either by hope or by threats held out to them by any person in authority and these statements were admitted in evidence.”
The appellate court held that the trial judge exercised his discretion judicially. Even if there had been disagreement with his assessment, the appellate court could not overrule the decision, as the statements were admissible and there was no evidence suggesting coercion.
PARTIES TO AN OFFENCE UNDER NIGERIAN CRIMINAL LAW (section 7)
Other Findings in R v.Akpon Umo & Ors (1944)
The appellate court also noted that the evidence against the first and third appellants was particularly strong, while the evidence against the second and fourth was sufficient to justify conviction. No other grounds of appeal had merit.
Final Judgment in R v.Akpon Umo & Ors (1944)
The appeals of all four appellants were dismissed, and the convictions and death sentences were upheld
Significance of this case
Rex v. Jackson Akpon Umo & Ors is a landmark case in Nigerian criminal law regarding:
Admissibility of statements obtained in breach of the Judges’ Rules.
Application of Rule 8 of the Judges’ Rules to illiterates, emphasizing judicial discretion in assessing voluntariness.
The case clarifies that procedural irregularities do not automatically invalidate evidence if the trial court is satisfied of its voluntary nature.
Don’t get it confused about about judges rules as Adumbrated in this case, here is what it entails.
What Are the Judges’ Rules?
They are rules that guide police officers on what to do before taking a statement from a suspect.Their purpose is to ensure that:the statement is voluntary,the suspect is not tricked,and the suspect understands what he is saying,because a statement that is not voluntary cannot be used in court.
Judges’ Rules make sure the police do not force or deceive accused persons into saying things that could convict them.
Examples of the rules include:
1. The suspect must be cautioned Police must tell the suspect:
“You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so… whatever you say will be taken down and may be used in evidence.”
This helps protect the suspect’s rights.
2. Statements must be voluntary
No threats, promises, intimidation, or inducement can be used.
3. Police must not read another suspect’s statement to a co-accused
This is especially important when there are many accused persons.This is exactly what happened in Rex v. Jackson Akpon Umo.
4. For illiterate accused persons, a special procedure must be followed (Rule 8)
This is the rule violated in the case.Rule 8 says:When accused persons cannot read or write:Another person (not the police) must read or interpret any statement for them.
The accused should not be influenced or invited to reply.
Anything they say during the reading is NOT admissible.Only if they decide to make a voluntary statement after being properly cautioned can that statement be used.
So why did the court still admit the statements?
Because the Judges’ Rules are guidelines, not strict laws.A statement taken in breach of the rules is not automatically unusable.The trial judge must check whether the statement was:made voluntarily,not caused by fear, threat, inducement,and truly represented what the accused wanted to say.
In this case, the judge said:
“I was satisfied that all the statements were made freely and voluntarily…”
The Court of Appeal supported By saying:
Even though the rules were broken, the statements are still admissible because they were voluntary.
Note as at today:
The Constitution has later introduced enforceable rights that look similar
The 1999 Constitution (and even the 1979 Constitution) contains rights such as:
Section 35(2): Right to remain silent…which is similar to the Judges’ Rules requirement for caution.
Section 35(2): Right not to be compelled to make a confession…similar to voluntariness under Judges’ Rules.
Even after the Constitution came into force, Nigerian courts still refer to:
Rex v. Afose (1942)
What are the ELEMENTS OF CRIME: Meaning, Definition, and Full Criminal Law Notes in Nigeria
SECTION 24 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE NIGERIA FULL ANALYSIS OF INTENTION AS AN ASPECT OF MENS REA
HISTORY & SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW IN NIGERIA
CHECK OUR MORE EASIER SUMMARY LIKE THIS CASES USING WEBSITE SEARCH
