CORAM
Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun JSC
Ibrahim mohammed musa saulawa SCN
Chioma egondu nwosu-iheme SCN
Haruna simon tsammani SCN
Jamilu yammama tukur SCN
PARTIES
HALI HASSAN
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW, HOMICIDE, EVIDENCE LAW, DEFENSES, PROVOCATION, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was charged with culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221(b) of the Penal Code for causing the death of one Hali Nakalangu on February 11, 2012, at Unguwar Marke Village of Tambuwal Local Government Area. The appellant stabbed the deceased twice in the neck after seeing him give money to the appellant’s wife.
The prosecution called four witnesses and tendered exhibits including a knife and the appellant’s extra-judicial statements. The appellant testified in his defense but called no other witnesses. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to death. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence, leading to this appeal.
The appellant’s defense was primarily based on provocation, claiming that seeing the deceased give money to his wife provoked him into the fatal act. However, both lower courts found that even if provocation was established, the appellant’s reaction was disproportionate and there was sufficient time for his passion to cool.
HELD
1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The concurrent findings of the two lower courts were affirmed.
3. The death sentence was upheld.
4. The Court held that the defense of provocation failed as:
The reaction was disproportionate
There was sufficient time for passion to cool
The force used was excessive
ISSUES
1. Whether it was proper in law for the courts to reject the defense of provocation on grounds that:
a) The appellant’s reaction was disproportionate to the provocation
b) There was enough time for the appellant’s temper to cool down
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PROVOCATION – LEGAL DEFINITION
“Provocation denotes something (e.g. words or actions) that affects a person’s reason and self-control, thereby causing the person to commit a crime impulsively.” – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.
ADEQUATE PROVOCATION – ELEMENTS
“Adequate provocation can reduce a criminal charge, as from murder to manslaughter… The usual form of adequate provocation is the heat of passion.” – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.
PROOF OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE
: “The Prosecution was under an onerous duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt that: (1) The death of a human being had occurred; (2) The death of the deceased was caused by the Appellant; (3) The Appellant knew or had reason to know that death would be the probable consequence of his act.” – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.
CONDITIONS FOR DEFENSE OF PROVOCATION
“The conditions for defence of provocation: (a) There ought to be some wrongful act or insult. (b) Such wrongful act or insult must be capable of causing loss of self-control to an ordinary reasonable person. (c) That act of the defendant was caused by sudden provocation. (d) That act of the defendant was committed before there was time for passion to cool; and (e) That the act of the defendant was proportionate to the provocation arising from the wrongful act or insult.” – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.
PROVOCATION AS MITIGATION
: “In a charge of culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221(b) of the Penal Code, the defence of provocation, where successfully raised, is only a mitigating factor.” – Per KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.
BURDEN OF PROOF FOR PROVOCATION
“For the defence to avail the accused, the defence must adduce positive and credible evidence to establish the provocation.” – Per KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.
DISPROPORTIONATE RESPONSE
“Even if it were true, as stated by the appellant, that he was provoked by the fact that he met the deceased giving his wife money… it was not an act that could provoke a man to act the way the appellant did by pursuing and attacking the deceased with a knife, even as he was running away.” – Per KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.
TARGETING VITAL BODY PARTS
“It is common knowledge that the neck is a vital part of the human body, therefore, to stab a man twice, aiming at that part is inevitable that the death of the person was intended.” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.
SPITEFUL CONDUCT NEGATING PROVOCATION
“The Appellant exhibited an altitude of spitefulness in pursuing and stabbing the deceased in the neck twice… the deceased had run away but the Appellant pursued him at some distance and inflicted the injury that killed him immediately.” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.
PROVOCATION AND SOCIETAL CONTEXT
“The facts, though may amount to provocation within the context of a deeply religious and rural society as obtains in our country… the act of the Appellant went beyond the plea that he was provoked even when he had the chance to retrace his steps.” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS
“If the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and Exhibits B & B1 were to be considered together, one would readily come to the conclusion that the confession of the Appellant was indeed true.” – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.
SCOPE OF PROVOCATION
“It is not all aspects of provocation that could warrant the mitigation of crime of culpable homicide punishable with death, to that of culpable homicide not punishable with death.” – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.
CONCURRENT FINDINGS
“There are concurrent findings of the two Courts below, to the conclusive effect that all the three fundamental ingredients stated above have been duly established by the prosecution against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.” – Per IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
2. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)