Legalpedia Citation: (2024-06) Legalpedia 57621 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

Fri Jun 21, 2024

Suit Number: SC.CR/416/2020

CORAM

PARTIES

THE STATE

APPELLANTS

TARI SABAGI

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

Criminal Law, Evidence Law, Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Defendant, Tari Sabagi, was charged with the murder of Chief Bello, a fellow fisherman, during an altercation over fishing territory along a riverbank. The prosecution alleged that the Defendant attacked the deceased with a fishing spear, leading to his death. Several eyewitnesses testified to having seen the Defendant attack the deceased, and forensic evidence was also presented, which linked the fatal injury to the spear used by the Defendant. Sabagi raised a defense of self-defense, claiming that the deceased was the aggressor and that he feared for his life. The trial court convicted the Defendant of murder, and the appeal focused on whether the defense of self-defense was applicable and whether the forensic evidence was properly admitted.

HELD

The court ruled in favor of the prosecution, affirming the conviction for murder. The court held that the forensic evidence linking the fishing spear to the fatal injury was credible and properly admitted. Furthermore, the court found that the defense of self-defense was not applicable in this case, as the use of force by the Defendant was excessive and disproportionate. The court concluded that the prosecution had met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

ISSUES

1. Whether the forensic evidence linking the Defendant to the death of the deceased was properly admitted by the trial court?
2. Whether the defense of self-defense raised by the Defendant was sufficient to absolve him of liability for murder?
3. Whether the prosecution met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction?
4. Whether the trial court rightly rejected the Defendant’s claim of self-defense?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

SELF-DEFENSE – WHEN THE USE OF FORCE IS EXCESSIVE

“In cases of self-defense, the Defendant must show that the use of force was necessary to prevent imminent harm, and that the force used was proportionate to the threat. In this case, the use of a deadly weapon was disproportionate, as there were other means available to the Defendant to avoid the conflict.”

FORENSIC EVIDENCE – CONCLUSIVENESS IN ESTABLISHING GUILT

“Forensic evidence that establishes a direct link between the accused and the crime is admissible and can be relied upon to establish guilt. In this case, the forensic evidence connecting the fishing spear to the fatal injury was found to be conclusive and was properly admitted.”

BURDEN OF PROOF – THE PROSECUTION MUST ESTABLISH GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

“The prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution provided sufficient evidence, both forensic and eyewitness, to meet this burden and establish the guilt of the Defendant.”

MALICE AFORETHOUGHT – IMPLIED BY THE USE OF A DEADLY WEAPON

“The use of a deadly weapon in a manner that is likely to cause death or grievous harm implies malice aforethought. In this case, the Defendant’s use of a fishing spear to attack the deceased demonstrated an intent to kill or cause serious harm, satisfying the requirement for malice aforethought in a murder charge.”

RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL – FAIR CONSIDERATION OF DEFENSE CLAIMS

“The right to a fair trial requires that all defenses, including self-defense, are properly considered by the court. In this case, the court gave due consideration to the defense of self-defense but found that the Defendant’s actions were disproportionate and unjustified.”

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY – WHEN IT IS CREDIBLE AND RELIABLE

“Credible eyewitness testimony, when consistent with other evidence such as forensic analysis, can be relied upon by the court to establish the guilt of the accused. In this case, multiple eyewitnesses testified to having seen the Defendant attack the deceased, and their testimonies were consistent and reliable.”

EVALUATION OF DEFENSES – THE COURT’S DUTY TO ASSESS THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS

“It is the duty of the court to evaluate all defenses raised by the accused, including claims of self-defense. In this case, the court found that the Defendant’s claim of self-defense was not credible, as the evidence suggested that the use of force was unnecessary and excessive.”

PROVOCATION – DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

“Provocation, while it may explain an accused’s actions, does not justify the use of deadly force unless the accused had no other means to avoid the danger. In this case, the court found that the Defendant’s response to the provocation was excessive and unjustified.”

INTENT TO KILL – IMPLIED BY THE USE OF A DEADLY WEAPON

“The use of a deadly weapon in a deliberate and aggressive manner, as was the case here, implies an intent to kill. The Defendant’s actions in striking the deceased with a fishing spear were found to demonstrate a clear intent to cause fatal harm.”

CONSISTENCY BETWEEN FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE – STRENGTHENS PROSECUTION’S CASE

“When forensic evidence corroborates eyewitness testimonies, it strengthens the credibility of the prosecution’s case. In this instance, both the forensic evidence and eyewitness testimonies aligned to support the prosecution’s case, thereby establishing the Defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”

LIMITATIONS OF SELF-DEFENSE – EXCESSIVE FORCE IS NOT PROTECTED

“The defense of self-defense has limits, particularly when the force used is excessive or disproportionate to the threat faced. In this case, the Defendant’s use of a fishing spear was found to be excessive in response to the situation and could not be justified as self-defense.”

MURDER – REQUIRES MALICE AFORETHOUGHT AND INTENT TO CAUSE DEATH

“Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought. The court found that the Defendant’s actions in attacking the deceased with a deadly weapon met the criteria for murder, as there was both intent and malice aforethought.”

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES – FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE COURT’S DECISION

“The credibility of witnesses is determined by their consistency, demeanor, and the corroborative strength of their testimonies. In this case, the eyewitnesses provided consistent accounts of the events leading to the death of the deceased, and their testimonies were corroborated by forensic evidence.”

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT