Extra-Judicial Statements

It is trite to state that the inconsistency rule does not apply to an accused person. In other words, it does not cover a case where an accused persons extra-judicial Statement is contrary to his testimony in Court. See the case of Ogudo v. State (2011) 12 SCM (Pt. 1) page 209 @ 223.

There are innumerable authorities which support the view that the Court may convict an accused person on his extra judicial confession which is voluntary and true but inconsistent with his evidence in Court. See Queen v. Itule (1961) 2 SCNLR p.183, Queen v.Obasa (1962) 2 SCNLR p.402
Akpan v. State (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt.248) p.439.
Before the Court convicts on extra judicial statements that are confessional such statements must be subjected to the tests laid down in R v. Walter Sykes (1913) 8 CAC p.233, explained in the leading judgment of my learned brother Eko JSC.
It is desirable to have outside the confession some evidence, however slight of circumstances which make it probable that the confession was true.

The last point that I should comment on is the question posed by the learned appellant's counsel in his issue no. 1 in his brief of argument on the question of contradiction between Exhibit B, the cautionary statement of the accused/appellant and his testimony in Court when testifying for his defence. This Court in the case of Wasari Umani v. The State (1988) 1 NWLR (pt.70) 274 or (1988) All NLR 148 or (1988) 2 SC 88 or (1988) LPELR 3357 (SC)had this to say per Nnamani JSC (of blessed memory) at page 14.
"In the recent case of Oladejo v. State (1987) 3 NWLR (pt. 61) 364 at 427 this Court dealt with this matter in greater detail. There, I said as follows:-
"Contrary to the conclusion of the learned trial judge, the law is rather that where a witness (here an accused person makes a statement which is inconsistent with his testimony, such testimony is to be treated as unreliable while the statement is not regarded as evidence upon which a Court can act" See pages 427-428.