SABO ILU V. THE STATE

CORAM

Helen moronkeji ogunwumiju JSC

Emmanuel akomaye agim JSC

Haruna simon tsammani JSC

Obande festus ogbuinya JSC

Mohammed baba idris JSC

PARTIES

SABO ILU

APPELLANTS 

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE LAW, DEFENCE OF INSANITY, DELUSIONS, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

On October 12, 2008, at about 8:00pm, the Appellant (Sabo Ilu) together with his brother called Abubakar Alias Garba (co-defendant) each armed themselves with hoes and followed their grandfather (Ha’u Mai Unguwa) in pretense that they were escorting him to his cattle ranch outside Zazika village of Birnin Kudu Local Government Area, Jigawa State. When they got close to the deceased, the co-defendant struck the deceased with his hoe which caused him to fall down. The Appellant then proceeded to hit the deceased with his own hoe on the head until they were satisfied that the deceased had died. They subsequently dug a grave and buried the deceased in their farm before returning home.

Their reason for killing the deceased was their belief that he was a witch who had caused the death of their parents through witchcraft. They also claimed that they were seeing the deceased in their dreams threatening to kill them.

Upon arraignment at the trial Court, the Appellant pleaded not guilty to the two-count charge. The prosecution called four witnesses and tendered several exhibits. The Appellant testified for himself and called no witness. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Judge found the Appellant guilty of the two-count charge and he was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment for the offence of Criminal Conspiracy and death by hanging for Culpable Homicide punishable with death.

The Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful, as the Court affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Still dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

1.The appeal was dismissed.

2.The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the trial Court, finding the Appellant guilty of the two-count charge of Criminal Conspiracy contrary to Section 97 of the Penal Code and Culpable Homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221(b) of the Penal Code Law of Jigawa State.

3.The Court held that there was no credible evidence on a balance of probabilities of insanity or insane delusions offered by the Appellant, and this failure to adduce credible evidence of insanity deprived the Appellant of the defence.

4.The Court ruled that a defense founded on belief in witchcraft is untenable in murder cases as it is based on the subjective belief of the Appellant rather than on the objective requirements of the law.

ISSUES

1.Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant against his conviction and sentence in the light of the evidence available before the Court justifying the invocation of the defence of insane delusion arising from belief in witchcraft?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DUTY OF COURT TO CONSIDER DEFENCES – OBLIGATION TO EVALUATE ALL POTENTIAL DEFENCES:

“It is the duty of the learned trial Judge to consider every defence available to the defendant no matter how stupid or unfounded they are, whether raised by the defendant or not. It is however the duty of the defendant’s Counsel to raise and prove the defence of mental delusion due to insanity where he intends to rely on it.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

BURDEN OF PROOF – ONUS ON DEFENDANT TO ESTABLISH INSANITY:

“Insanity is defined as any mental disorder severe enough that it prevents a person from having legal capacity and excuses the person from criminal or civil responsibility. Insanity is a blanket term embracing a considerable variety of mental abnormalities, mental infirmities, neurosis, and psychosis. Where the defence of the defendant is unsoundness of mind or insanity, the onus is on him to plead same and produce credible evidence of insanity or unsoundness of mind, at the time the crime was committed.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

ELEMENTS OF INSANITY DEFENCE – REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING MENTAL DISORDER

“In order to establish the defence of insanity, the following facts must be established: a) Evidence as to the past conduct of the defendant relating to his/her state of mind; b) Evidence as to the conduct of the defendant immediately preceding the killing of the deceased; c) Evidence from prison officials who had custody of the defendant before, during and after the incident; d) Evidence of medical officers who examined the defendant; e) Evidence of relatives and neigbours about the general behavior of the defendant and his reputation for acts of sanity or insanity in the neighborhood; f) Evidence of genetical heritage of insanity; and g) Such other facts that will make the trial Court come to the conclusion that the burden of proof placed by law on the defence has been discharged.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

MCNAUGHTEN RULES – HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF INSANITY DEFENCE:

“To establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

LEGAL VERSUS MEDICAL INSANITY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN JUDICIAL AND MEDICAL ASSESSMENT:

“Every person is presumed sane until the contrary is proved and therefore accountable for their actions. Insanity of a defendant in the legal sense at the time the offence was committed is a question of fact to be decided by the Court and not by medical men, no matter how eminent. It is dependent on previous and contemporaneous acts of the defendant.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

STANDARD OF PROOF FOR INSANITY – BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES TEST:

Onus is on the defendant pleading insanity to prove a mental disease or natural mental infirmity at the relevant time depriving the defendant of capacity to understand what he was doing, to control his actions or to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission. Absence of motive does not infer mania. Standard of proof of insanity, which is not an offence, is as in civil matters based on a balance of probabilities.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

BELIEF IN WITCHCRAFT – SUBJECTIVE BELIEF VERSUS OBJECTIVE LEGAL STANDARDS:

“For delusion to apply as a defence, it must be proved that there was a falsely held belief inaccessible to reason and which represents a departure from previously held patterns of belief and which exists out of context with patterns of belief held by the culture from which the subject derives – thus the defendant was of mental infirmity that he could not understand what he was doing nor exercise control over his actions or know he ought not to do an act or make omission.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

DELUSION VERSUS INSANITY – DISTINCTION BETWEEN TYPES OF MENTAL DISORDERS

“On a correct and proper reading and consideration of the section, I am unable to hold that delusion that has no causation in mental disease or natural mental infirmity does afford any defence. I make this point because of the growing fashion in the unbriddled use of the term delusion by counsel appearing for accused appellants.” – Per OBASEKI, J.S.C. (quoted by HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.)

WITCHCRAFT AS DEFENCE – INSUFFICIENCY OF BELIEF IN WITCHCRAFT AS LEGAL DEFENCE:

“No man’s belief is on trial in a murder case… What is on trial is the act or omission of the accused. Whether or not the accused believes in witchcraft seems quite irrelevant to the inquiry… Therefore, a defence founded on belief in witchcraft or juju is a defence founded on the subjective belief of the accused rather than on the objective requirements of the law relating to the particular relevant defence. Such defences are untenable.” – Per OPUTA, J.S.C. (quoted by HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.)

CONDUCT OF DEFENDANT – IMPORTANCE OF DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR IN ASSESSING SANITY:

“My Lords, from the evidence before the trial Court, it is clear to me that the Appellant’s conduct at all material times in the commission of the crimes was lucid and he was also in full control of his reasoning faculties even during trial. Also, there was no medical or germane evidence on the part of the Appellant to show that indeed he had mental delusion neither was there any corroborative evidence from the witnesses at trial.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – USE OF CO-DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION AGAINST APPELLANT:

There are exceptions to the rule that a confession only binds the maker and not the co-defendant. The law permits a Court to use a confessional statement of a co-defendant against the Appellant if same is adopted by the Appellant either by words or conduct.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

ADOPTION OF CO-DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT – REQUIREMENTS FOR BINDING EFFECT

Where more persons than one are charged jointly with an offence and a confession made by one of such persons in the presence of one or more of the other persons so charged is given in evidence, the Court shall not take such statement into consideration as against any of such other persons in whose presence it was made unless he adopted the said statement by words or conduct.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

DEFENCE OF INSANITY – REQUISITE ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY:

The defence of insanity or mental delusion involves an acceptance of responsibility for the act complained of. It therefore places the legal onus on the Appellant to satisfy the Court that the evidence led before the High Court sufficiently proves insanity/mental delusion.” – Per OBASEKI, J.S.C. (quoted by HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.)

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1.Penal Code Law of Jigawa State, Sections 97 and 221(b)

2.Criminal Code Law of the South, Section 28

3.Penal Code of the North, Section 51

4.Evidence Act, 2011, Section 29(4)

5.Criminal Code Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, Section 28

6.Criminal Code Laws of Western Nigeria 1959, Section 26

7.Act for the Safe Custody of Insane Persons charged with Offences (1800)

8.Homicide Act 1957 (UK)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT