Supernumerary Police

On the effect of the failure in taking the accused before a superior police officer after his statement was obtained, the practice and procedure, although desirous is not however a legal requirement. See Solola v. The State (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 937) P.460 at 484 where this Court held and said:-
"... It is not a rule of law that the confessional statement of the accused person should be taken to a superior police officer in order that the accused may deny or admit making the statement: See R v. Omerewure & Sapele (1957) 2 FSC 24."

One of the primary functions of the police is to investigate all crimes which are brought to their notice and wherever possible to bring the perpetrators before the Courts, together with all the relevant evidence. Controversies associated with methods used by law enforcement agents in the interrogation of suspected persons and the value of evidence obtained thereby has always been a source of judicial and societal concern

Furthermore and in the case of Egboghonome V. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt 306) 385 this Court reasoned that while it is not the law for a Superior Police Officer to attest the statement of an accused, it only gives credence to the confessional statement and may strengthen the case of the accused. The tradition is a rule of practice developed by the police. It is not part of the judge's rule. In the foregoing case of Egboghonome (supra) (2001) 2 ACLR 267 at 295 it was held that:-
"the practice of taking accused persons, who confessed to the commission of serious offences, before superior police officers for confirmation of the voluntariness of the confession, is not required by any rule of law or procedure.
The practice was developed by the police and has been highly commended by this Court as if ensures fair play and justice to the accused. However, failure to call the attesting officer as a witness will not perse be fatal to a conviction; R V. Nwigboke (1959) SC NLR 289 (1959) 5 FSC 101."