CORAM
M.L. UWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S. KAWU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
O. OLATAWURA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
I.L. KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.U. MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
FOLUSHO OLADELE
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW – INSANITY
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was charged with the murder of her daughter. She was convicted and sentenced to death. The appellant sought by application to call additional evidence and the Court of Appeal granted the application and heard the evidence of a Psychiatrist who diagnosed the appellant as having schizophrenia psychosis. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal
HELD
Appeal allowed and a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity entered
ISSUES
Whether the appellant can succeed on the issue of insanity.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRESUMPTION OF SOUND MIND
“Every person is presumed to be of sound mind and to have been of sound mind at the time in question until the contrary is proved” PER OLATAWURA, JSC
WHEN A DEFENCE OF INSANITY IS RAISED, IT SHOULD BE TREATED FIRST
“There is no doubt that in appropriate cases an accused person can be found guilty and convicted on his confessional statement; but where, as in this case, the defence of insanity is raised, it is better to deal with the issue of insanity first before considering the confessional statements made by an accused person whose defence is based mainly on insanity. If the defence of insanity succeeds, it will definitely affect the confessional statement made by a person who is insane. No weight should be attached to such a statement.” PER OLATAWURA, JSC
MATERIAL FACT TO SHOW INSANITY
“The information required from relatives appears to me relevant in view of the fact that insanity is not an outbreak of an epidemic. The antecedent of the accused. such as the family history, the evidence of previous acts which show traits of insanity are material if section 28 of the Criminal Code Law is to be satisfied” PER OLATAWURA, JSC
ONUS IS ON THE DEFENCE TO ESTABLISH INSANITY
“The clear statement of the law is that the onus is on the defence on a balance of probabilities to establish insanity. The accused must prove that at the time the offence was committed he was actually insane within the conditions stipulated under section 28 of the Criminal Code” PER OLATAWURA, JSC
POSITION OF THE LAW WHEN THERE ARE TWO OR MORE INTERPRETATION
“The position in law is that where an act is capable of two or more interpretations the interpretation most favourable to the accused should be preferred.” PER OLATAWURA, JSC
CASES CITED
ONAKPOYA v. THE QUEEN (1959) NSCC. 130
ASANYA v. THE STATE (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 180) 422
LOKE v. THE STATE (1985) 1 NWLR(Pt. 1) 1 SC
KURE v. THE STATE (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.71) 404
STATUTES REFERRED TO