UMARU ADAMU V THE STATE

CORAM

ALOYSIUS I. KATSINA-ALU, , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

UMARU ADAMU APPELLANTS

THE STATE

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant slaughtered his step mother – Inno Adamu and was seen licking the blood on the knife, saying Allahu Akbar meaning God is great. The Appellant was charged at the trial Court with culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to section 221 of the Penal Code. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and the defence of insanity was elicited during the cross-examination of the prosecution’s witness but was not pleaded by the Appellant. The trial Court found the Appellant guilty and sentenced him to death by hanging. The Appellant, irked with the trial Court’s decision, appealed to the Court of Appeal where the appeal was dismissed. The Appellant further appealed to this Court.

HELD

Appeal Succeeds Partially

ISSUES

1. “Whether the guilt of the appellant was proved and established beyond reasonable doubt having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial court and affirmed by the court of appeal.”?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DEFENCE OF INSANITY-ONUS ON A PARTY ALLEGING SAME

“However, where the defence of an accused person 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 alleged crime was committed”. PER ARIWOOLA, JSC

PRESUMPTION-PRESUMPTION OF SANITY -HOW REBUTTED

“Ordinarily, in law, everyone is presumed to be sane and of sound mind and accountable for his actions, unless the contrary is proved. But, where there is defect or incapacity of the understanding, as there can be no consent of the will, the act is not punishable as a crime. In the legal sense, whether the accused was sane or insane at the time when the act was committed is a question of fact to be decided by the trial Judge but not by Medical men, however eminent or knowledgeable, and is dependent upon the previous and contemporaneous acts of the accused”. PER ARIWOOLA, JSC

DEFENCES-DEFENCE OF INSANITY-FUNDAMENTAL POINTS IN CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO AN ACCUSED PERSON IN HIS DEFENCE OF INSANITY

“When considering the evidence available to or adduced by an accused person in his defence of insanity, the court has held the following radical and fundamental points to be important to be borne in mind and kept in view.
(a) The law presumes every person, including any person accused of crime, sane until the contrary is proved (See Section 27 of the Criminal Code).The prosecution does not set out to prove what the law presumes in its favour.
(b)An accused person who raises insanity as his defence has the onus of proving such insanity cast on him. The standard of such proof is not as high as that cast on the prosecution. It is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but it is proof of reasonable probability, proof sufficient to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of a fair minded jury as to the sanity of the accused.
(c)Insanity is a blanket term embracing a considerable variety of mental abnormalities, mental infirmities, neurosis and psychosis.
(d)To constitute a defence, the mental condition relied on should be such that could and did deprive the accused of capacity:
(i)To understand what he was doing; or
(ii)To control his action; or
(iii) To know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission complained of as constitution the actus reus of the offence charged. PER ARIWOOLA, JSC

INSANITY -MEANING OF

“What then is “insanity”? It is “any mental disorder severe enough that it prevents a person from having legal capacity and excuses the person from criminal or civil responsibility. Indeed, it is a legal, not a medical, standard.” PER ARIWOOLA, JSC

CULPABLE HOMICIDE PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH-INGREDIENTS OF

“However, for the prosecution to secure conviction in a charge of culpable homicide punishable with death under the Penal Code, as in the instant case, the following ingredients must be established:
(i)the death of the decease;
(ii)that the death resulted from the act of accused; and
(iii)that the accused knew that his act will result in the death or did not care whether the death of the deceased will result from his act”. PER ARIWOOLA JSC

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL CASES-STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED

“It is a fundamental principle of our criminal law that in all cases, the burden of proving that any person has been guilty of a crime or wrongful act, subject to certain exceptions, is on the prosecution. And if the commission of a crime is directly in issue in any civil or criminal proceeding, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt”. PER ARIWOOLA, JSC

CULPABLE HOMICIDE-WHAT A COURT SHOULD CONSIDER

“However, the law is clear that in all trials of culpable homicide, the court has the onerous duty to consider:
(a)all the defence raised by the evidence whether the accused person specifically put up such defence or not; and
(b)any defence raised by an accused person no matter how weak, inconsequential or stupid it may appear must be given due attention”. PER ARIWOOLA, JSC

CASES CITED

Abeke Onafowokan vs. The State (1987) NWLR (Pt.61) 538; (1987) LPELR 266(SC)Adeyinka A. Laoye vs. The State (1985) NWLR (Pt 10) 832; (1985) LPELR 1954 (SC)Ali & Anor vs. The State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.68), 1Apishe vs. The State (1971) 1 All NLR 50;Durwode vs. State (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt 691) 467 at 487 – 488;Josephine Ani Vs. The State (2002) 8 SCM 1; (2002) 48 WRN 94.M.A. Sanusi vs. The State (1984) 10 SC 166(1984) LPELR – SCMogaii vs. The Nigerian Army (2008) 5 SCM 126. See;Ngene Arum vs. The State (1979) 11 SC 91 at 119;Nwede vs. The State (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt.13) 444;Ogbu vs. The State (1992) 10 SCNJ 88, (1992)NWLR (Pt 259 255;Ogbu & Anor vs. The State (2007) 4 SCM 169 at 185Okagbue vs. Commission of Police (1965) NMLR 232,Osarodion Okoro vs. The State (1988) 12 SC (Pt 11) 88; (1988) NWLR (Pt 94;Oteki vs. Attorney General Bendel State (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt 24) 648;Popoola vs. The State (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt 1382) 96 at 122R Vs Basil Ranger Lawrence (1932) UNLR 6,R vs. Revitt, 34 Cr. App 87,Taktta vs. the State (1969) 1 All NLR 270;Udo Akpan Udofia vs. The State (1988) 7 SC (Pt 111) 59 at 62Williams vs. I.G.P. (1965) NMLR 470Woolmington vs. DPP (1935) A.C. 426 at 481,

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Penal Code

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT