INTRODUCTION

Crime detection and prevention come with their own challenges, strategies and peculiarities. In most cases, the details of what goes into criminal prosecution are largely unknown to the public. Law is very unique in its interpretation and application and unless properly guided, prosecutors face very deadly landmines in the course of handling serious criminal cases. Without doubt, the real prosecution starts from the period of investigation, arrest, detention and interrogation of the defendant. The process is so technical that any little error can be costly for the prosecutor. Especially in cases involving capital offences such as armed robbery or kidnapping where fatality has occurred, emotions run high and the tendency is to always assume the guilt of the defendant. From that primitive perspective, all that matters is to get the defendant convicted at all costs, including possible coercion to obtain the famed confessional statement to ground conviction. Although the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and the Administration of Criminal Justice Laws of the various States of the Federation have attempted to simplify the process of interrogation of the defendant through video evidence and confirmation by counsel, the case of Hussaini v State has provided basic guidelines for this fundamental process that all investigators, prosecutors and defendants should become familiar with, especially in cases where the defendant is an illiterate. The pain of losing a case due to technical errors can be very deep when one considers the fate of the family of the deceased victim, the efforts of law enforcement officers to apprehend the defendant and the resources expended by the state to prosecute him.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the case of Hussaini v State as reported in (2026) 3 NWLR (Pt.2031) 199 are that sometime in June, 2016, the appellant with other co-defendants conspired to rob and did rob one Tijjani Mohammed (now deceased) of his Samsung phone and money in the sum of N1,800 whilst armed with knives and cutlasses. Thereafter, they stabbed him in his chest and stomach which subsequently led to his death. They were charged with offences of Criminal Conspiracy contrary to section 97 of the Penal Code, Culpable Homicidepunishable with death contrary to section 221 of the Penal Code and Armed Robbery contrary to section 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, 1990. Upon arraignment at the trial court, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the three-count charge. The prosecution called seven witnesses and tendered thirteen exhibits. The appellant testified for himself and called no witness. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the appellant guilty of the three-count charge and he was subsequently convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Further aggrieved, the appellant lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court, the appellant contended largely that the procedure adopted by the prosecution witnesses in recording and translating the retracted confessional statements of the appellant was wrongful and ought to be rejected and that the respondent failed to discharge the burden placed on it to establish the three-count charge against the appellant. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

The Mode of Obtaining Confessional Statements of Suspect or Accused Person by the Police:

The mode of obtaining confessional statements by the Police is to first administer the customary words of caution to the suspect or accused informing the suspect or accused of his right to keep silent as his words may be used against him. If the suspect or accused speaks or writes another language different from English language, the suspect or accused will make his statement in the language he understands. If he can write in vernacular, he should be allowed to write. If he cannot write, the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) who understands the said native language will write it down on his behalf. The statement will be read over to him, he will confirm it and sign or put his mark or signature. Thereafter, an interpreter, usually the same IPO, will translate the statement to English language. The suspect or accused, the English version and the vernacular version of the statements will be taken to a Senior Police Officer if the statement is confessional in content. The suspect or accused will confirm before the Senior Police Officer that indeed he made the vernacular statement without duress. The Senior Police Officer will counter sign the English version. Where the accused or suspect can read and write English, he would write his statement. Where he cannot write but can speak English, he can be helped by the IPO to write it. The statement would be read over to him before he puts his mark or signature. If confessional in content, he would be taken before a Senior Police Officer to confirm that he indeed gave the statement without duress. The interpreter may be sourced from the Police or from numerous non-uniform clerks, etc, who work with the Police. The important legal point is that the Police (Investigating Police Officer) where he understands the language of the suspect or accused will record in that language and can also be the interpreter who interprets the native language to English. Occasions may arise where the I.P.O cannot understand the language of the suspect or accused. In that case, an interpreter will write the statement of the suspect or accused in the native language, read it to the suspect or accused, and interpret it into English (the language of the court). The suspect or accused must understand what has been put down and the interpreter must indicate that he read over the words written to the suspect or accused who understood the same before he signed. The suspect or accused is only obliged to sign the statement in his native language. It is important in both instances that the I.P.O. as interpreter or whoever else is called to perform that function must give evidence at trial regarding the circumstances under which the statement was taken. Failure to give evidence on oath by the interpreter renders the statement inadmissible. In the instant case, the requirement was met by PW3 and PW5, the Police officers who recorded and interpreted the appellant’s confessional statements, The appellant was cautioned by the Police officer who recorded and took his statements and he was informed of his rights in Hausa, the language he understood and he signed them. Thereafter, the statements were translated into English language, which was duly signed by the Investigating Police Officers as interpreters.

What the Supreme Court decided in Queen v. Okoro (1960) SCNLR 292:

Per OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C. at page 226, paras C-G:

"With respect to the appellant’s misconceived contention in Queen v. Nnana Okoro (supra), it is in law and facts distinguishable from the instant appeal. The Supreme Court in that case was of the opinion that it might consider the issue but did not give a categorical statement that it would be illegal for the Police officer who took the statement to also interpret the same. All the court said was that “had the statement been the only evidence against the appellant; we might have had to consider whether a conviction thereon was justified”. Subsequent authorities of this court have walked away from the proposition (if there ever was) that it is undesirable for a Police officer who took the statement to interpret the same. What has been consistent is that the interpreter must be called to give evidence on oath at trial which took place in the instant appeal. These authorities support the consistent position of this court that where the recorder and the interpreter of a statement are the same, so long as the person confirms on oath before the court the circumstances of the taking and recording of the statement, the statement would be admissible”.

The Language Extra Judicial Statement of an Accused Should be Recorded:

The extra judicial statement of an accused person should be, whenever practicable, be recorded in the language spoken by the accused. The rationale is to avoid technical arguments which could be raised. It is not an invariable practice but one to ensure the correctness and accuracy of the statement made by the accused person. In other words, it is the practice and procedure of the Police to record the statement of the accused person and interpret the same so long as the officer followed the laid down procedure in obtaining the statement of the suspect or accused and the said statement is recorded in the language he understands and it is interpreted to him.

Whether Extra judicial Statement Recorded and Interpreted by Same Person Admissible:

The fact that a statement was recorded and interpreted by one and the same person does not automatically render the statement or confessional statement inadmissible, especially where the defendant was represented by a counsel who raised no objection to the admissibility of such document. Once it is shown that the contents of a document were read and interpreted to the accused and he understood the same, such document is admissible. In the instant case, the requirement of the law was complied with as the police officers (PW3 and PW5) who recorded the statements were in court and testified during the trial. They were bound by solemn affirmation to state the truth and there was no form of objection at trial that the exhibits so admitted, being the confessional statements were wrongly interpreted.

The Nature of Work of Police Officers Who Investigate Crime:

Police officers are the organs of State mandated to carry out their duties without let or hindrance and without fear or favour. A police officer investigating a crime is not acting in his own interests and his official actions would not violate any of the twin pillars of natural justice. In the instant case, the investigation of the case by the police officers including the taking of statements from the appellant was not conducted in a manner that compromised the interests of the appellant.

Update news