The application and relevance of judges rules in obtaining volutary confessions in Zambia: A critical Analysis

Abstract

Confessions made by an accused person are admissible in a court of law provided they are made freely and voluntarily. Hence in an effort to obtain free and voluntary confessions from suspects, judges rules are made applicable by a police officer or any other person carrying out the function of an interrogatory nature. It is therefore these rules of practice that aid in the obtaining of voluntary confessions.The obtaining of free and voluntary confessions from accused persons has always faced challenges in Zambia in the sense that interrogating officers have not adhered to them. This is attributed to lack of knowledge of them by village headmen and such related committees, who in Zambia are given the mandate to interrogate.In addition non-compliance is also attributable to negligence by police officers, who are actually knowledgeable about these rules of practice. This concept of Judges Rules is a foreign one and is meant for an organised society where recognition of human rights thrives. It is against this backdrop therefore that the relevance of these rules in Zambia is rendered questionable as the abuse of basic rights is on the rampage.In addition these rules are merely rules of practice and not rules of law and hence give trial judges the discretion to exclude confessions made as a result of breach of them. It follows that a confession obtained in breach of them will be admissible in as far as it is relevant to the fact in issue.In the light of the foregoing, it can be seen that the relevance of these rules leaves much to be desired. Hence a critical analysis of the relevance of judges rules in Zambia is imperative.