28/09/2026
37KG OF CANNABIS, A CONFESSION AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT: WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID_
By B.C OBILOR ESQ.
Imagine being arrested while sitting behind the wheel of a car containing 37 kilogrammes of cannabis. You deny the offence, challenge the evidence against you, and eventually take the matter all the way to the Supreme Court. That is the story behind Tajudeen v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2026) 14 NWLR (Pt. 2059) 91.
Tella Tajudeen was arrested on 27 July 2017 at Dugbe, Ibadan, while in a green Toyota Camry containing 35 compressed parcels of Cannabis Sativa weighing 37kg. He was charged under section 11(b) of the NDLEA Act for transporting the prohibited drug without lawful authority. The Federal High Court convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, and the matter eventually reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 5 June 2026.
At the Supreme Court, the appellant raised important arguments. One was that the prosecution had not proved that Cannabis Sativa was a drug similar to co***ne, he**in or L*D as contemplated by section 11(b). Another challenge concerned Exhibit K, the confessional statement attributed to him. He had denied making the statement and also questioned aspects of the prosecution's evidence. He further argued that imposing life imprisonment was excessive, particularly considering that he was a first-time offender and had young children.
The Court, however, considered the evidence as a whole. The prosecution had called four witnesses, produced the cannabis recovered from the vehicle, tendered the drug analysis report and other exhibits, and relied on the confessional statement. The evidence of the NDLEA officers placed Tajudeen in the driver's seat of the vehicle, while the laboratory evidence confirmed that the substance recovered was Cannabis Sativa. The Court also noted that the alleged confession was consistent with other evidence before the trial court.
On the argument concerning cannabis, the Court rejected the suggestion that the prosecution had to separately prove that Cannabis Sativa was similar to co***ne, he**in or L*D. Relying on the statutory definitions and the earlier Supreme Court decision in Okewu v. FRN (2012) LPELR-7834(SC), the Court held that Cannabis Sativa falls within the expression “any other similar drugs” contemplated by the NDLEA Act.
The challenge to the confessional statement also failed. The important point is that a confession does not automatically lose its value merely because an accused person later retracts it. Once a court finds a confession to be voluntary and credible, it may be relied upon, particularly where it is supported by other evidence. In Tajudeen's case, the confession was considered alongside the testimony of the NDLEA officers, the recovered cannabis, the vehicle and the laboratory analysis.
The Court also dealt with the argument that there were discrepancies in some aspects of the prosecution's evidence. The principle is straightforward: not every inconsistency in a criminal trial creates reasonable doubt. What matters is whether the contradiction is material enough to affect the substance of the prosecution's case.
Finally came the question of punishment. Section 11(b) of the NDLEA Act provides for imprisonment for life for the unlawful transportation or trafficking of the specified drugs and similar drugs. The appellate court had treated the punishment as mandatory, leaving no discretion to substitute a lesser sentence.
The case therefore provides an important lesson in criminal litigation: the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but where credible direct, circumstantial and confessional evidence collectively establish the ingredients of the offence, minor discrepancies may not be enough to secure an acquittal.
Tajudeen v. FRN is ultimately a reminder that in criminal trials, the court does not examine evidence in isolated pieces. It considers the totality of the evidence to determine whether the prosecution has established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
& B C Obilor and Associates
Legal Help Centre
Law&Crime
