CORAM
S.M.A BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.B. WALI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
I.L. KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
E.O. OGWUEGBU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.U.MOHAMMED. JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
NSE UDO NTITA
APPELLANTS
THE STATE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW— MURDER- DEFENCE OF INSANITY— APPEAL
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant was tried and convicted with the murder of the deceased and found guilty by the trial court. He appealed to the Court of Appeal, who dismissed his appeal. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court, he has appealed to this Court.
HELD
The court held that the appellant was NOT GUILTY by reason of unsoundness of mind under section 28 of the Criminal Code. The appellant is hereby ordered to be kept under safe prison custody subject to the order of the State Governor (see section 230(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act).
ISSUES
Whether from all the circumstances of this case, the defence of insanity was not available to the accused/appellant under section 28 of the criminal code?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BURDEN OF PROVING INSANITY
I must quickly say that the burden of establishing a defence on the ground of insanity rests squarely on the accused. Per Kutigi JSC
NEED TO CONSIDER ALL DEFENCES
It is settled law that any defence to which an accused person is on the evidence entitled to should be considered however stupid or unreasonable for whatever its worth. Per Kutigi JSC
CASES CITED
1. R. v. Nasamu (1940) 6 WACA. 74
2. R. v. Ashigifuwo(1984) 12 WA.C.A. 389
3. R. v. Echem 14 WACA 158,
4. R. v. Onakoya (1959) SCNLR 384 (1959) 4 FSC 150.
5. R. v. Fadina (1958) SCNLR 250; 3 FSC 11
6. Ojo v. The State (1972) 12 S.C. 147
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Criminal Code.