THE LAW ON CONFESSIONS.

According to Swami V King Emperor, the term confession means a statement by an accused
person acknowledging guilt of an alleged crime. Lord Atkin in the case stated that an accused
must admit in full the commission of an offense or at any rate substantially the facts which
constitute the offence.
See Uganda V Mutahanzo.

In Anyangu V R, it was held that a statement is not a confession unless it is sufficient of itself to
justify the conviction of the person; making it of the essence he or she is being tried.

There are three major issues to look at under the law of confessions;
1. Who takes down a confession,
2. The value of the confession,
3. Consequences of making a confession.

Who takes down a confession?

Per Section 23(1) of the Evidence Act, no person shall make a confession while he or she is in the
custody of a police officer shall be proved against such persons unless it's made in the immediate
presence of;
a) Police officers at or above the rank of assistant Police inspector.
b) Magistrate
And no person shall be convicted of an offense under paragraph 1 unless of confession made under
that paragraph is corroborated by their material evidence supporting the confession implicating
that person.
See Wasswa and anor V Uganda

Under section 24, a confession made by the accused person is said to be irrelevant if the making of
the confession appears to the court having regard the state of mind of the accused and to all
circumstances have been caused by any violence, force, inducement, calculated in court's opinion
to cause an untrue confession to be made, the law therefore requires that all confessions be made
voluntarily. This is because;
i) Confessions are a suspect species of evidence because generally people do not make
statements that are prejudicial to themselves, where these are made; there is suspicion
of undue influence.
ii) Because the investigative machinery is inefficient, lacks resources and is usually
technologically challenged in view of which it is easy for investigators to resort to
methods that are repulsive for example torture in order to secure confessions.

In Re Sykes, it was held that under this provision, court must decide bearing in mind the state of
mind of the accused, whether there has any threat or inducements of violence so that if any of
theses operated on the mind of the accused, such a statement would be considered involuntary.

In Abasi Kanyike V Uganda, it was held that the voluntariness or otherwise of a confessions can
only be determined at the trial within a trial.
1
Bwesigye Brian's Notes' Summaries; Confessions
In Njuguna and others V R, it was held that it is the duty of very judge and magistrate to examine
with the closest care and attention all the circumstances in which the confession has been obtained
by an accused person particularly when that person has been in police custody for a long time
before his or her confession.

See, R V Okello
See, Mwange s/o Njoroge V R

Section 25 of the Evidence Act which is an exception to section 24 provides, if such confession as
is referred to in section 24 is made after the impression caused by any such violence, force, threat,
inducement or promise has in the opinion of the court been fully removed, it is relevant.
See Arikanjero Dau V R
See R V Zavekas
See Ibrahim V King
See Bagaga V Uganda

Section 26 provides, if such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant
merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy or in consequence of a deception practiced
on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it or when he or she's drunk, or because it was
made in answer to a question which he or she need not have answered. Whatever may have been
the form of this question, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make a
confession and that evidence of it might be given against him or her.

The validity of a confession becomes an issue where that confession is challenged e.g. in the
because of retraction or repudiation. Repudiation means that the accused denies having made the
statement. Retraction means that although the accused admits having made the statement, he now
wishes to challenge the truthfulness or the voluntariness for that statement.

In Tuwamoi V Uganda, it was held in the above case that the basic distinction between a retracted
and a repudiated confession is that a retracted confession occurs when the accused person admits
that he made the statements recorded but now seeks to take back what he said generally on the
ground that he had been forced or induced to make the statement. In other words that statement
was not voluntary.

A repudiated statement is one which the accused person avers that he never made. It was a well
established rule of prudence that it dangerous to act when a retracted or repudiated confession
unless it is corroborated in some material particulars or unless the court is satisfied about its truth.
See Kasule V Uganda
See Amos Birunge V Uganda

The process of taking a confession

2
Bwesigye Brian's Notes' Summaries; Confessions
The statement should be read back to confirm after it has been recorded. After confirmation, the
accused is asked to sign or thumbprint as a sign of approval. The person down the confession
should also sign the date of the confession and if it is a magistrate, it may be prudent that they use
a court seal. It is important to note that in this session, the accused should not be cross examined.

See, R V Kaggwa
See Kato V Uganda
See Thiono V R

Section 27 of the Evidence Act provides that when more persons than one are being tried jointly
for the same offense, and a confession made by one of those persons, affecting himself and some
other of those persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against
that other person as well as against the person who makes the confession. This covers confessions
against co accused.

Where the confession by one person is proven, found relevant and as indication of implicating
another (co accused) such confession may be considered against both.

Under this section, offense is defined to include attempts; in practice, courts will only admit this
kind of confession if it passes the test of fully incriminating the maker. In other words, it does not
shift the blame to the co-accused. The rationale for this was explained in R V Wandingombe. It
was stated by court that by making a real and qualified confession, the person who makes it has
exposed himself to the pains and penalties described for the offense and this is the guarantee for
the truthfulness of the statement.

In Uganda V Mugenyi Geoffrey, it was held that this is not only accomplice evidence, it is also
evidence o the weakest kind and can only be used as tending assurance for other evidence against
the co accused.
See Batara V Uganda.
See Uganda V Sebuguzi

Section 29 of the evidence Act states that notwithstanding section 23 and 24, when any fact is
deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person of any offense, so
much of that information, whether it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to the facts
thereby discovered may be proved.

This provision refers to information leading to discovery. Sometimes, a statement may not have
value of convicting the maker with regard to the alleged offense but may have the value of
assisting the police to discover other crimes. The issue then is whether this statement may be used
for another purpose other than the particular purpose for which it was obtained. Under this
provision, the answer to the issue is in the affirmative.
See John Eyiru V Uganda
See Birembo V Uganda

3
Bwesigye Brian's Notes' Summaries; Confessions