In a significant development for criminal jurisprudence in Nigeria, the Ogun State High Court, presided over by Hon. Justice Catherine Ogunsanya, has delivered a groundbreaking judgment on July 10th, 2025, in the case of HCJ/25C/2025 STATE V. IDOWU TUNDE. The court effectively set aside the provision of Section 17(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice and Other Related Matters Law of Ogun State, 2017 (ACJL Ogun State), aligning its decision with the recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the twin cases of F.R.N. V. AKAEZE (2024) 12 NWLR PT. 1951 PG. 5 and F.R.N. V. NNAJIOFOR.
This ruling marks a crucial victory for the protection of suspects' rights during investigations and emphasises the imperative of due process in obtaining confessional statements.
Click the link below to read and download the judgment passed in the case of State V. Idowu Tunde.
The Case in Focus: State V. Idowu Tunde
The defendant, Idowu Tunde, was charged with murder. During the trial, the prosecution tendered two confessional statements (Exhibits C and F) allegedly made by the defendant to the police. However, under cross-examination, the investigating police officers (PW3 and PW4) admitted that neither a legal practitioner nor a video recording was present when these statements were obtained.
The defence counsel, Moruff Balogun, Esq., vigorously challenged the admissibility of these statements, relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Akaeze and Nnajiofor, as well as Section 19(7) of the ACJL Ogun State. Section 19(7) expressly renders inadmissible any statement made to the police by a suspect without a lawyer, video recording, or other designated person as stipulated in subsections (3), (4), and (5) of the same law.
Conversely, the prosecuting counsel, MRS. F.I. AMEH ADPP argued that the Supreme Court decisions were not predicated on the ACJL Ogun State and that Section 17(4) of the Ogun State law allowed for admissibility even with non-compliance. Section 17(4) notably includes a proviso stating that "non-compliance with any requirement of this sub-section shall not preclude the admissibility in evidence of any confession otherwise admissible under the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act."
The Court's Resounding Verdict: Upholding Constitutional Rights
Justice Ogunsanya, in her well-reasoned judgment, meticulously resolved the conflict. She unequivocally declared that the proviso in Section 17(4) ACJL Ogun State, which seemingly permitted the admissibility of confessional statements despite non-compliance with the requirements of audio-visual recording and the presence of a legal practitioner, is "invalid to the extent of its inconsistency with the Right to Fair Hearing under Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended."
The Judge emphasised that the ACJL Ogun State, like its federal and Lagos State counterparts (ACJA 2015 and ACJL Lagos 2011), aims to protect fair hearing rights. She firmly stated that the law "cannot legislate away the obligation placed squarely on the shoulders of law enforcement officers to comply with when taking statements of Defendant which are confessional."
Crucially, Justice Ogunsanya clarified that compliance with these safeguards is not contingent on the defendant raising an objection to the voluntariness of the statement. She declared it a "provision cast in stone" that "must be complied with to the letter, whether the Defendant objects to the admissibility of the statement or not."
Her Lordship further highlighted the critical need for such safeguards, especially in cases carrying capital punishment, noting that without a video recording and the presence of a legal practitioner, a court cannot be certain of the truth of an admission of guilt, particularly when defendants may not be sufficiently literate to fully comprehend their admissions.
The Impact and Implications
This judgment by the Ogun State High Court reinforces the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding fundamental human rights, particularly the right to a fair hearing. By aligning with the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Akaeze and Nnajiofor, the decision sends a clear message to law enforcement agencies across Ogun State and potentially other jurisdictions with similar ACJL provisions: the strict adherence to the requirements for obtaining confessional statements is mandatory.
The expungement of Exhibits C and F in the Idowu Tunde case due to non-compliance underscores the practical consequences of failing to adhere to these provisions. This ruling is expected to lead to greater professionalism in police investigations, ensuring that confessional statements are obtained in a manner that respects due process and enhances their reliability.
For legal practitioners, this decision provides a strong precedent to challenge confessional statements obtained in violation of these established safeguards. For the public, it offers greater assurance that their rights will be protected during police interactions.
This landmark judgment is a significant step towards strengthening the administration of criminal justice in Ogun State and serves as a vital reminder that the pursuit of justice must always be balanced with the protection of fundamental human rights.
 ACJL OGUN STATE, BOLSTERING SUSPECTS' RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL - A LANDMARK DECISION ALIGNING WITH SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT.){kind=link}
0 Comments