MR. ADEWUNMI ADEYINKA & ORS v. PASTOR KELVIN AGBAKWURU & ORS
April 5, 2025AUGUSTINE KANE DANWE & 7 ORS.V. ALHAJI HAMMAN ADAMA TUKUR
April 5, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (SC) 32111
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Feb 21, 2019
Suit Number: SC.924/2016
CORAM
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
EJEMBI EKO, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
SIDI DAUDA BAGE, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
DAVID UCHE IDEH
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Accused/Appellant was arraigned before the Ogun State High Court holden at Abeokuta on the 1st of July 2015 on a one count charge of murder contrary to Section 316 and punishable under Section 319 of the Criminal Law of Ogun State. The particulars of the offence are that on or about the 28th of March, 2014, at Block 11, Flat B, Laderin Estate, Abeokuta, the Appellant murdered Olufunmilayo Timeyin, a retired Chief Magistrate of the Ogun State Judiciary. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. In order to prove its case, the prosecution called nine witnesses and closed its case.
The Appellant then as an accused testified in his defence and did not call additional witness. Learned Counsel for the respective parties addressed the Court. In a reserved and considered judgment, the trial judge found the Appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to death by hanging. The Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed hence, the instant appeal before this court contending that the trial court by its refusal to permit the psychiatric evaluation of the Appellant at his Counsel’s request had breached established procedures under Section 223 and 224 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Ogun State 2006 and equally denied the Appellant’s right to fair hearing as enshrined under Section 36 (6) (b) and 36 (6) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the Learned Justices of the lower Court ought to have dismissed the appeal against the refusal by the Learned trial Judge, to permit the psychological evaluation of the Appellant at the instance of the Appellant’s Counsel bearing in mind that it amounts to a breached (Sic) of established procedures under Sections 223 and 224 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Ogun State 2006 and a violation of the Appellant’s Fundamental Right to Fair Hearing enshrined under Section 36(6)(b) and 36(6)(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DEFENCE OF INSANITY- FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN THE DEFENCE OF INSANITY IS RAISED AT TRIAL
“Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Ogun State provides that an accused person shall be deemed to be of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence if by reason of some physical or mental condition he cannot follow the proceedings and make a proper defence. Section 223 and 224 of the same Law enjoin a trial Judge to do the following when the issue of insanity is raised at the trial, viz: – (a) When he observes that the accused behaves abnormally, or (b) When the fact of the mental instability of the accused is raised in the course of the trial, or (c) When the Counsel to the accused request for the inquiry. The three conditions here can only arise when the issue of insanity is raised. For the Court to deem an accused person to be of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence by reason of some physical or natural condition, the conduct or behavior of such an accused person must be taken into account by the trial Judge, whose opinion only will be relevant.”
PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND- WHETHER A PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND CAN BE HELD LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMINAL ACTIONS
“Section 28 of the Criminal Code of Ogun State provides that a person who is by reason of unsoundness of mind, prevented from exercising control of his own conduct and deprived of the power of passing rational judgment on the character of his actions, cannot be held legally responsible for the Criminal consequences of his actions. Protection is given by this section to an insane person, who although aware of the nature of his act, was mentally incapable of knowing whether his act was wrong or contrary to Law.”
DEFENCE OF INSANITY – CONDITIONS FOR ESTABLISHING THE DEFENCE OF INSANITY
“To establish a defence of insanity it must be clearly pleaded and proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was suffering from a defect of reason from disease of the mind so as not to know the nature and quality of his act or that what he was doing was wrong. The Court is concerned only with the state of mind of the accused at the time of the act. Once the issue of insanity is pleaded, the Court must determine whether or not the accused was conscious at the time of doing the act and that the act complained of was one which he ought not to do or which was contrary to the Law.”
PROOF OF INSANITY- ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN OF PROVING INSANITY
“Although the burden of proof that a person is insane lies on the Accused person who must establish that he is insane on balance of probabilities, once the prosecution has been put on notice that a defence of insanity is to be raised at the trial, it has a positive duty to assist in the investigation of the case for the benefit of both sides, by inquiring into any evidence relating to such a defence and by arranging for the observation of the accused by a doctor or psychiatrist with a view to reporting on his mental condition. It will be unjust for the prosecution to leave it to the accused person especially an accused person from a rural community who has no access to legal representation to produce expert evidence of insanity simply because the burden of proof lies on the defence. See Suleiman v. The State (1981)1 NCR 242.”
JUDGE – DUTY OF A JUDGE IN CRIMINAL TRIAL
“In our system of criminal trial, the Judge as an umpire is not expected to descend into the arena of contest. This illustrates the difference between the accusatorial and the inquisitorial method of trying an accused person. Our system is accusatorial in the sense that the innocence of the accused is presumed until he is proved guilty by the prosecution. The major feature of the system we operate is the passive and inactive role of the Judge which emphasizes the active role of Counsel for the prosecution and for the defence. The duty of a Judge is not to investigate matters that are placed before him, but to attentively listen to parties and speaks mainly to deliver his judgments. See Godwin Josiah v. The State (1985) 1 SC. 406 at 443; David Uso v. C.O.P. (1972)11 SC. 37 at 46 – 47.
PROOF OF INSANITY – WHETHER A TESTIMONY PROVIDED SOLELY BY AN ACCUSED PERSON IN PROOF OF INSANITY CAN AVAIL HIM
“The ipse dixit of a Counsel that his client is not mentally fit to stand trial and that such information was provided by the said client cannot avail the accused person. For evidence tendered by the accused is suspect and is not usually taken seriously for establishing his insanity. See Onyekwe v The State (1988)1 NWLR (Pt.72)565”.
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION- WHAT IS AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION?
“An issue for the purpose of an appeal is a substantial question of law or fact or both arising from the grounds of appeal which, when resolved, one way or the other, will affect the result of the appeal. See Chief Imonikhe & Anor. V Attorney-General Bendel State & Ors. (1992) NWLR (Pt. 248) 396 at 407.”
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT – WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN APPEALS FROM TRIAL COURTS
“The Supreme Court of Nigeria, is a creature of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended; See Section 230 (1) therefore It derives its powers from the same source: See Section 233 (1) of the Constitution (supra). The Court of last resort has no jurisdiction to hear appeal from the trial Court”.
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – RIGHT TO FACILITIES OF AN ACCUSED PERSON FOR THE PREPARATION OF HIS DEFENCE
“Section 36 (6) (b) and (d) of the 1999 Constitution provides: – 36(6) Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled- (b) to be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (d) to examine in person or by his legal practitioner the witnesses called by the prosecution before any Court or tribunal and obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on his behalf before the Court on the same conditions as those applying to the witnesses called by the prosecution.” –
PROOF OF INSANITY – STEPS TO BE TAKEN BY COURTS IN ASCERTAINING THE SOUNDNESS OF MIND OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
“The application of Sections 223 and 224 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Ogun State enjoin the Court trying the accused to conduct an enquiry into the soundness of mind of the accused when: – (a) the Court observes that the accused is behaving abnormally; or (b) the fact of the mental instability of the accused is raised in the course of the trial. (c) the counsel for the accused requests for the inquiry. See: Popoola v. State (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1382) 96; Mboho v. The State (1966) All NLR 63. This Court reiterated in Popoola v. State supra at page 113 that: The ad hoc procedure which this inquiry is cannot be held in vacua or on its own without the conditions precedent to its process being present. Those conditions are in the main that the trial Judge himself has observed certain abnormal behaviour of the accused which convinces him that there may be a danger of the trial not being conducted with a stable accused fit to stand his trial.” –
PROOF OF INSANITY – ON WHO LIES THE BURDEN OF PROVING INSANITY
“The law presumes that every person is of sound mind until the contrary is proved. So the prosecution does not set out to prove the sanity of the accused; it is the duty of the defence to put up the plea of the unsoundness of mind of the accused for the offence charged in order to put the trial Judge on enquiry on whether the accused is incapable of making his defence. And even where the defence of insanity or unsoundness of mind is raised, it is the duty of the trial Judge to decide whether the defence is available to the accused or not.”
PROOF OF INSANITY – WHETHER COURTS HAVE A DUTY TO INVESTIGATE THE DEFENCE OF INSANITY WHEN RAISED BY AN ACCUSED PERSON
“Insanity is a matter of fact, provable by whoever alleges same in order to reduce his criminal responsibility and rebut the presumption of sanity the law ascribes to all, including an accused person. The burden of proving whatever is asserted lies on the party alleging same who desires the Court to give him judgment on the fact he asserts: Sections 131 & 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Section 223 of the CPL of Ogun State read together with Section 36 (1) & (6) (b) of the Constitution, 1999, as amended, generally do not impose on the trial Court the duty to actively involve itself in the investigation and unearthing of facts either in aid of the prosecution against the person or of the defence against the prosecution”.
COURT – INDEPENDENCE OF COURTS IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS OR OBLIGATIONS OF ANY PERSON
“Section 36 (1) of the Constitution enjoins the Court to maintain its independence and impartiality” in the determination of the civil rights or obligations of any person, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority”.
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Criminal Code of Ogun State
3. Criminal Procedure Law of Ogun State 2006
