By Ayodele Okedele

Introduction
Access to Justice is a fundamental human right, embodying the legislative and institutional guarantees of fairness, transparency, equal treatment before the law, and the provision of effective legal remedies. Towards upholding this, the Supreme Court of Nigeria, in the recent case of FRN v. Akaeze, held that the use of video recording tools for confessional statements during pre-trial detentions is not a discretionary responsibility. While the judgment may face some criticism, it is a commendable decision for the overall development of Nigeria’s criminal justice system, the protection of fundamental human rights, the improvement of policing practices, and the enhancement of public trust in the judicial process.

Case Summary: FRN v. Akaeze
In the case of FRN v. Akaeze, the respondent and two others were arraigned before the Federal High Court on charges of conspiracy and failure to declare $102,885 to the Nigeria Customs Service at Murtala Muhammed International Airport, Lagos. These charges were in violation of sections 2(3), 8(5), and 18 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended). During the trial, the prosecution attempted to admit the respondent’s extra-judicial statements as evidence. The defense objected, arguing that the statements were confessions made involuntarily and did not comply with sections 15(4) and 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.

The trial court conducted a trial-within-trial and found that the statements were made voluntarily and were therefore admissible. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, ruling that the statements should be excluded as they did not meet the statutory requirements, and remitted the case for reassignment to a different judge.

The Supreme Court Judgment
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, affirming that the statutory provisions regarding confessional statements must be strictly adhered to. Their Lordships emphasized the principle that when a statute uses the word “may” to prescribe a duty for a public officer, particularly one meant to protect the rights of another, such a provision should be interpreted as mandatory, rather than discretionary. In the supporting judgment, Ogunwumiju JSC stated:

“To hold that the word ‘may’ in the said provisions carries a discretionary or permissive meaning would not suppress the mischief the provisions are aimed at curing, nor would it advance the remedy for it. It would also not add force and life to the cure, rather it would add strength to the mischief and that would not be pro bono publico. Given the objective of the provisions, to give a permissive coloration to the provisions would mean that the Legislature gave a cure to the mischief with one hand and also took away the cure with the other hand.”

This interpretation underscored the necessity of video recording confessional statements to ensure fairness and uphold justice.

Access to Justice: Enhancing Rights Protection
The video recording of confessional statements serves as an enforcement aid for the protection of fundamental rights, particularly under section 34 of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits torture, and section 35(2), which prohibits forced confessions. In Nigerian criminal trials, it is common for defendants to claim that extra-judicial confessions were not obtained voluntarily, leading to trial-within-trial proceedings. These proceedings often prolong the already slow-paced judicial process. However, the Supreme Court’s judgment in FRN v. Akaeze, if fully implemented, will ensure that these rights are not only protected but are seen to be protected.

By mandating video recordings, trials will be more efficient, focused on credible evidence, and less prone to delays caused by disputes over the voluntariness of confessions. Moreover, the Nigeria Police Force and other law enforcement agencies will be compelled to elevate their standards, aligning with global best practices that safeguard the integrity of voluntary confessions. This shift will strengthen public confidence in the justice system and further the realization of Access to Justice.

Challenges and Criticisms of the Judgment
While the Supreme Court’s ruling is a commendable step toward upholding the rights of accused persons and enhancing Access to Justice, it is not without challenges. The most immediate and resolvable issue is the lack of state-provided video recording facilities in many detention centers across Nigeria. Without adequate infrastructure, law enforcement agencies may struggle to comply with the judgment. The introduction of video recording technology requires significant investment in equipment, training of officers, and regular maintenance, none of which is currently widespread in the Nigerian criminal justice system.