To escape this, those who can, have in the time of medical attention sought help from foreign medical practitioners who to a great instant, seem to understand the importance of life and its unduplicatable value. Ironically, this is not a cross shouldered by the poor alone as the rich have, in one way or another, bled to death by the unsterilized dagger of the surgeon in whose hands life should ordinarily be saved.
Unfortunately, this lack of responsibility has in no way troubled the conscience of the average Nigerian medical practitioner who, the desperate pursuit of wealth (rather than the pursuit of humanity) has beclouded his call. In today’s Nigeria, there is an alarming increase of poor health care ranging from inaccurate diagnosis to wrong prescription of drugs, down to delay or withdrawal of treatment: all amounting to medical negligence. It is further intended that at the conclusion of this short paper, a knowledge of trial within trial would glow in the practice note of every legal practitioner and even, on every suspect.
In the course of this paper, a summary attention shall be paid to the concept trial within trial: its origin circumstances when it is expected to be used its procedure and consequences that may arise when it is failed to be conducted. However, to ensure that an accused who cries that the statement sought to be tendered by the prosecution was made under undue influence is actually true, and not an attempt to take advantage of the law, it has become a practice in our criminal proceedings that in a situation like that, a thorough and independent probe on whether or not the statement was made mind-free, known as trial within trial (also called mini-trial) is conducted by the court. Where such is not the case, upon trial, the involuntarily statement ought not to be admitted into evidence and conviction on such statement made under duress is enough ground for appeal and to quash that conviction. These statutes expect, and so stipulate, that every statement made by a suspect must be voluntarily and bore of free will. These statutes all, in the ultimate knowledge of their draftsmen, provide for the safeguard of a suspect’s rights while under lawful custody when making a statement. These statutes range from The Constitution down to the various Criminal Procedural Legislations, and The Evidence Act. In order to ensure that a suspect, whom under the law is still considered innocent, is not incriminated by a desperate law enforcement officer into forcefully or unwillingly accepting and admitting to a crime he did not commit, the provisions of some statutes have stipulated rules of extracting the confessional statement of every suspect.
0 kommentar(er)
