Prepared By: DAMILARE DE-ICON.

🫶🏾
CRIMINAL LAW
● What is crime?
● Definition of crime
● Constitutionality of criminal law as a discipline.
● Sources of the Nigerian criminal law.
● Jurisdiction of criminal matters
● Criminal Responsibility/Liability(elements of a crime)
● Relevance of Actus Reus and Mens Rea in Nigeria.
● Causation
● Relevance of Motive
Definition of crime is should be done from three perspectives:
● Statutory
● Juristic/textual
● Case laws or judicial definitions.

ESSENCE OF DEFINING THE CONCEPT OF CRIME.

The essence is just to give an interpretation or explanation to the
concept. Note that no defination is supreme and can override or
overlord others. The basis of every definition is to have a background
of a concept.

Statutory definition:
1. Criminal code and penal code (north and south respectively)
Definitions:

SECTION 2 OF CRIMINAL CODE:

An act or Omission which renders the person doing the act or making
the omission liable to punishment under this code or under any act or
law is called an offense.
Note: Crime is not limited to the provisions of the criminal code but
other law or statute however, this is not found in the penal code (such
phrase is not included).

Note: Penal code and criminal codes (primary enactment).

SECTION 3 OF PENAL CODE:

Every person shall be liable to punishment under the penal code for
every act or omission contrary to the provision thereof of which he
shall be guilty within the state.

Note: 3(2) is to the effect that no person shall be subject to any

punishment under any native or customary law.

S36 (12) 1999 CFRN - Subject as otherwise provided by this

Constitution, a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence
unless that offence is defined and the penalty therefor is prescribed in
a written law, and in this subsection, a written law refers to an Act of
the National Assembly or a Law of a State, any subsidiary legislation
or instrument under the provisions of a law.

The simple meaning of the above section is that an act must be

defined and punishment prescribed to be referred to as crime.
See also S.11 of the criminal code.
This principles are also encapsulated in two common law
maxims:
● Nullum crimen sine lege: This maxim is interpreted to mean
that "no act is criminal except that defined to be so by the
law".
 ● Nulla poene sine lege: This maxim means that "no citizen can
be made to suffer any punishment except in accordance
with the law".
S4(6) 1999 CFRN — empowers the state legislature to make laws
and powers to criminalize any act within the state, even though penal
code doesn't add such a clause.

Juristic Perspective on meaning of a crime

Etymologically, the word Crime originated from the Latin word
"crimen '' which means accusation.

Jones and Cross - Crime as a legal wrong by which an offender is

punishable by the instrument of state.

Glanville William- legal wrong followed by legal proceedings and

punishable under the law.
Okonkwo and Naish- Breaches of law punishable by law.
Abdulrhaman Dambazau in his book criminality and criminal justice
defines crime as a violation of criminal law which is subsequently
followed by legal proceedings.

CASE LAWS OR JUDICIAL DEFINITIONS:

R V TAYLOR (1960) 2 QB 594 it was held that crime is an act
committed or omitted in violation of public law which either forbids or
commands it.

Constitutionality of criminal law as a discipline.

S. 4(1) CFRN confers legislative power to make laws in the Exclusive
list (Exclusion clause)
4(6) - State house of assembly
4.(4 & 7)- Vest powers to make laws in the federal and state laws.
It is important to note that the power to criminalize an offense falls
under the concurrent legislative list.
There are several constitutional principles that affect the criminal
Justice system in Nigeria.

From the above definitions the following elements can be

deduced:.
They include:

● A crime could be an Act

● A crime could be an Omission
● Described to be an offense by written law
● Punishment must be prescribed thereto.

1.ACT: the thought of an act a legal wrong is not punishable until it is

executed, an act therefore is intentional or unintentional legal wrong.
It’s important to note that An act becomes a crime only when it is
carried out, regardless of the intention behind it, as only God can truly
know a person's intentions. Even a minor action can constitute the
actus reus, or guilty act, of a crime, such as a slight movement leading
to assault or theft. For instance, hitting someone constitutes the actus
reus of assault.

2.Omission: it is the failure or Negligence of legal duty and not

moral duty. See R v Akanni(1959 where
“The members of the crowd who stood by and watched the
house in which they knew an old woman was locked in and being
burnt and did nothing behaved disgracefully but that does not
bring them within the provision of the law dealing with principal
offenders to be regarded as participants in the act of murder...”
A mere failure to do something can lead to a criminal act. Majority of
crimes are punished based on actions. S.344 of Criminal Code,
makes it a general offense for anyone to cause by negligent omission
in the breach of a duty. Also See generally from Section 300 — 305
of criminal code on duties relating to preservation of human life.
Finally, Omission refers to a failure to act when legally obligated to do
so, constituting a crime only if there's a duty imposed by law. See
sections 136, 137, 139, 141-143, 150 of penal code
Omission of those duties lead to criminal liability.

3. Described to be an offense in a written law: this is the feature

that exempts customary law from being a source of criminal law in
Nigeria. See S. 36(12)CFRN. S.11 CC

4. Punishment must be prescribed thereto: the punishment of such

a crime must be spelled out expressly in a written law.
Sources of Criminal Law in Nigeria.
1. Constitution: This is a supreme or grundnorm where other laws
derive their validity. S.(1) of CFRN.
S1(3) CFRN Blue pencil rule (only invalidates the part of the law that
is inconsistent with the constitution, not the whole law).
The constitution makes the provision for fundamental rules applicable
in trial and criminal matters such as:
● S.36(1) Right to fear hearing
● S.36(5) Right to presumption of innocence until proven
guilty
● S.36(10) Protection against double jeopardy
● S.240 Right to appeal to a higher court
● S.36(8) and S.4(9) the principle of non-retroactivity criminal
law. ETC
● The above are fundamental rules of a criminal proceeding and
these are set down by the constitution.
2. Primary enactments (Criminal and penal codes):
More than 80 percent of what constitutes crime in Nigeria is found in
the criminal law. See Aoko v Faqbemi
3. Judicial decisions/ case laws:
Hierarchy of Courts (Stare decisis) make the decisions of higher
courts binding on the lower courts.
Can we say that Judges make laws?
Some scholars say assigning law making powers to the legislature
contravenes S.4 of the CFRN and amount to a usurpation of
legislative power but it is evident that S.6 of the 1999 CFRN through
power of interpretation tells us what the law is and what the law ought
to be. Lex lata (law as it is) Lex ferenda (law as it should be).
The Judiciary only expounds the law and doesn't expand the law.
Judiciary formulates principle through cases to fill the lacunae in the
laws.
4. Customary law: these are largely unwritten laws. See Lewis v
Bankole. Taking a look back at the pre-colonial Nigerian days, that
was when each community was subject to their native authorities.
However, S.36(12) rules out the criminal customary law because it
is largely unwritten. See AOKO V FAGBEMI ON S.36(12)1999
CFRN. Customary laws exist or are only binding in honour and there
is no legal backing as the criminal justice system is concerned.
See S3.(2) of penal code and S. 11 of criminal code
5. Received English laws: The common law of crime set the
foundation of the primary enactments (penal and criminal codes) but
no longer form a part of Nigerian criminal laws. They are only
persuasive, not binding on the Nigerian courts.See LUFTHANSA V
Airline and F.R.A Williams v Majekodunmi.

Jurisdiction of the Courts in Criminal Matters

The Criminal Code and Penal Code provide procedures for
addressing jurisdictional conflicts that may arise when an offense
occurs in multiple states of the federation, outside Nigeria etc.
The general principle is that individuals who commit offenses within a
jurisdiction are held accountable within that jurisdiction, regardless of
their residency or origin.
When a crime starts in one state but is completed in another, it raises
questions about which court has the authority to hear the case. For
example, if someone commits a crime in Lagos State but finishes it in
Kwara State, deciding which court should handle the case can be
tricky and onerous. This issue often comes up in our courts.
OFFENSES COMMITTED WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY IN NIGERIA
• By virtue of section 4(1) of the penal code act and section 12 of
the criminal code, any person who commits an offence in Nigeria
shall be held liable for that offence irrespective of whether he is a
Nigerian or not. For instance, if A, a Ghanaian commits an offence in
Nigeria, the Nigerian courts shall have jurisdiction to hear and
determine such offence.
•In the case of offences with various elements and the initial element
is committed in Nigeria, by virtue of section 4 (2)(a) of the penal
code and section 12(1) of the criminal code, the Nigerian courts
shall have jurisdiction to hear and try the offence. For instance, if A
phoned someone to kill another in Ghana, the Nigeria courts shall
have jurisdiction to hear and try the offender. This has been settled in
the celebrated case of PATRICK JACOB OSOBA vs. THE QUEEN
(1961) All N.L.R. 1, where the accused through a call made in Lagos
fraudulently caused someone in England to deliver goods to another
in Australia. It was held that the Lagos Court has jurisdiction to hear
and try the case.
•By virtue of S.4 (2) (b) of PC and S. 12(2) of CC, if the substantial
parts of an offence is committed in Nigeria but the initial act is
committed outside Nigeria, the Nigerian courts shall have jurisdiction
to try the offence if the offender subsequently enters Nigeria.

• Section 94 of the ACJA provides that “an offence committed at sea

or outside the territory of Nigeria, may be tried or inquired into at any
place in Nigeria to which the suspect is first brought, or to which he
may be taken thereafter.

Offences Committed Wholly in Nigeria but within Different States

By virtue of S.4(1) of PC and S.12A (1) of the CC, any person who
commits an offence in a state shall be held liable in that state
irrespective of whether he is from that state or not. For instance if A
commits an offence in Oyo state, the Oyo State court shall have
jurisdiction to try that offence irrespective of whether or not the
accused is from Oyo State.

However where the offence has various elements and the initial
element is committed in a state, by virtue of S.4 (2)(a) of PC and
S.12A (2) (a) of CC the courts of that state shall have jurisdiction to
try that offence. For instance, if A who resides in Ilorin called someone
to kill another in Ibadan, the Kwara State High Courts shall have
Jurisdiction to try that offence. This has been said and settled in
OKORO V. A.-G WEST
Furthermore by virtue of S.4 (2) (b) of PC and S. 12A (2) (b) of CC, if
the substantial parts of an offence is committed in a state and the
initial part of that offence is committed outside the state, the courts in
that state where the substantial part of the offence shall have
jurisdiction to try the offence if the offender subsequently enters that
state.
However it should be noted that by virtue of S.4 (3) of PC and the
Proviso to S.12A (2) of CC it may be a defence for an accused that
he did not intend that the offence should be committed in the state
where the initial part was committed. This means that an accused
person may escape liability if he commits the initial parts of an offence
in a state and refused to enter the state where the substantial part of
the offence was committed. However in PATRICK NJOVENS V.
STATE it was held that entry may include forceful entry. Therefore
where an offender commits the initial part of an offence in a state and
refuses to enter the state where the substantial part was committed,
the police can exercise the powers conferred on them under S. 23 to
S. 30 of the PA and arrest the accused person and take him to the
state where the substantial part of the offence was committed to face
trial.
Finally by virtue of S.4 (4) of PC and the proviso to S.12A (2) of CC,
it should be noted that the provisions of S.4 of PC and S.12A of CC
does not apply to situations whereby the only material thing that
occurred in a state is the death of a person whose death was caused
by act done or omitted to be done outside the state. For example if A
was injured in Ibadan but later died in Ilorin as a result of the injury,
the Ilorin Courts will not have jurisdiction to try the case.
OFFENCES AGAINST LAWS OF A STATE
The rule of jurisdiction is less cumbersome under the Penal Code for
all high courts in Northern Nigeria for which the code applies are
deemed as one by virtue of section 4 (1) of the Penal Code.By
section 4 (2)(a) of the Penal Code, where an offence comprises
several elements and the initial element occurs in a state where the
Penal Code Act applies, the court will assume jurisdiction and shall
hear and determine the case as if all the subsequent elements of the
offence occurred in the state.

Section 4 (2)(b) of the Penal Code is to the effect of an accused who

enters the Northern Nigeria after the commission of an act or the
making of an omission
Under the criminal code, the accused is bound to be tried where the
offence was committed. See section 12A (2) of the criminal code.
An accused who committed an offence in Ogun State and escaped to
Lagos State shall be transferred to where the offence was committed
under the criminal code.
However, in a situation where an offence is initiated in a State and
completed in another state, both state courts can assume jurisdiction,
therefore, can hear and determine the matter.

FEDERAL OFFENCES

JURISDICTION UNDER THE ACJA 2015.

Section 93 (1)(a) ACJA 2015 provides that with regard to federal
offences, a court will assume jurisdiction where;

• The offence is wholly committed

• The offence is partly committed
• An act forming part of the offence was done.

Section 93 (1)(b) ACJA 2015 provides that an accused person can

be tried where the consequence of the offence happens.
Section 93 (1)(d) ACJA 2015 provides for cases where an offence
has to do with property, the court where the property was found will
assume jurisdiction. However, such property must have been
transported/transferred by the accused person.

By section 95 ACJA 2015, where an offence is committed on

voyage/journey/transit, the court in the following places will assume
jurisdiction;

• Where the suspect/accused person resides

• Where the victims reside
• Places passed through during the journey.

Any of the above courts that first assume jurisdiction will hear
and determine the matter.

By section 96 (a & b) ACJA 2015, where an offence is commenced

in a state and completed in another state or completed in the FCT
after being commenced in another state; the suspect may be tried and
punished as if the offence is actually or wholly committed in any of the
states or the FCT.

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBLE OR LIABILITY.

The elements or fundamentals of a crime which are incumbent upon
prosecution to prove in a criminal charge. Upon proving these
elements, the Court will consider such a criminal case.
Criminal liability or responsibility is the same as elements or
ingredients of a crime.

There are two elements which must be proved:

● ACTUS REUS
● MENS REA

ACTUS REUS: Actus reus means the physical elements of an

offence, the criminal act or the guilty act or subject of the act. It can
also be an omission which constitutes an offence when the law
produces a duty to act upon. Physical elements can be actual or
constructive.
R V MILLER
The defendant was drunk and lit a cigarette in his mouth which started
a fire while he was sleeping, he woke up to see that the property
already caught fire and instead of putting it off he went to another
room to sleep he was charged for arson and the court [Lord Dipson]
held that conduct can constitute a criminal liability and that where one
has the opportunity to counteract a danger committed by oneself, if at
the time of such conduct one's state of mind is such as constitutes a
necessary ingredient of the offense
• R V PITTWOOD
In this case the accused was convicted of the case of manslaughter
instead of murder, thereby resulting in the death of the victim. He was
convicted because he was under a duty to ensure the closure of the
gate at all times but refused to do so.
Certainly, here's a succinct summary with all the relevant sections and
cases included:
Form of actus reus
1. Act: Any physical action that constitutes the external element of a
crime. Even small movements can be considered actus reus. (e.g.,
hitting someone). Various sections defining offenses like theft and
assault.
2.Passive State of Affairs: Offenses can result from a state of affairs
without direct physical action. (e.g., being idle) see S.405 & 406 PC.
S.249 & 250 CC In R V Parsonneur, it was held that Being idle
constituted vagrancy.

3. Initial Act and/or Other Factors: Sometimes, additional acts or

factors are needed to prove actus reus. For example, in receiving
stolen property, proof of theft is required.under S. 316 of PC and
S.427 of CC is that a person must be in possession of good(accused
act) and that the goods were stolen(other factor).

4. Omission: failure to perform a particular act when legally obligated

to do so. It becomes a crime if there's a legal duty to act. (e.g.,
refusing to provide food leading to someone's death) see S.136, 137,
139, 141, 142, 143, 150 PC, S.344, 305A, 300, 305
 Akanni v State(Supra).
Omission may be in various forms. These are:
1.Failure to perform contractual duty. An omission to perform duty
imposed by contract may also constitute actus reus.
In R V. PITTWOOD, a railway gatekeeper, left his duty which resulted
in an accident and the court held the gatekeeper liable for unlawful
omission to perform his public duty as a public officer. Also in R V
LARE, a man left his duty and put quack there. He was held liable for
the resultant injury.
In R V. LOWE, an engineer left a coal mine unattended as a result of
which there was an explosion. He was held liable for murder. Also in R
V. NICHOL, a doctor after cutting the umbilical cord of a baby left it
untied as a result of which the baby died. He was held liable for
murder. Section 344 of the Criminal Code Act. makes it a general
offence for anyone to cause
harm by negligent omission in breach of a duty.
2.Failure to perform statutory obligations. The law imposes some
duties which a person is bound to perform and any omission to
perform these duties may constitute the actus reus of an offence. For
instance, omission of a public officer to perform his duties under S.
130 of PC, failure of a person to obey an order of a public officers
under S136 of the PC, failure of a person to produce document to a
public officer under S. 137 of PC, failure to give information to a public
officer under S.138 of PC, failure of a person to render assistance to a
public officer whenever there is a duty to do so under S.150 of PC,
and neglect by peace officer to suppress riot under S. 199 of CC.
An example of this was in R vs. FIRTH, the defendant was a doctor
who failed to inform an NHS hospital that he was transferring a
non-NHS patient to it as required by law.
In R vs. DYTHAM (1979) QB 722 can be taken as an example. In this
case the defendant was a police officer who was almost at the end of
his shift. He stood by whilst a bouncer kicked a man to death. He was
charged with the offence of misconduct in a public officer. He argued
that the offence could not be committed by an omission as it
specifically requires misconduct. It was held that the offence of
misconduct in a public offence can be committed by an omission. The
defendant's conviction was upheld.
R vs. BROWN a riot was about to start and the police asked the
defendant to help in stopping the riot. The defendant refused and he
was found guilty of abetting. This position has received statutory
blessing in the Nigeria Criminal Justice system. Section 150 of the
Penal Code Act and 200, 201 of the Criminal Code Act punishes
whoever omits to render or furnish assistance to any public
servant/peace officer in the execution of his public duty.

3. Failure to perform an assumed duty or duty under special

relationship. The law may impose certain duties which are to be
performed under certain special relationships. For instance in a
master/servant relationship S. 302 of the CC imposes some duties on
a master. Also in parents/children relationships, S. 301 of the CC
imposes some duties on the family head. Therefore an omission to
perform these duties may constitute actus reus of an offence.
Forms of Assumed Duty:
i.Parental Duty to Child: Parents are inherently responsible for their
child's care and well-being. Failure to fulfill this duty can result in
criminal liability. In R v. Gibbons and Proctor, a man and his wife
neglected the man's child from a previous marriage, leading to the
child's death. Both were convicted of murder for their omission to act.
However, once a child reaches legal age (18 years), parental duty
may cease, as seen in R v. Shepherd.
ii.Other Relationships: This category includes duties within
relationships such as spouses or siblings. In R v.Stone; R v.
Dobinson cohabiting defendants failed to care for the victim, leading
to her death from neglect. They were charged with murder, later
reduced to manslaughter due to their circumstances. Also in R V.
INSTAN a young woman was held liable for murder because she
failed to perform the duty she owed to her sister under the special
relationship between them.

ii.Jointly Engaged in Dangerous Activities: When parties

participate in hazardous activities together, they owe each other a
duty. In Lewin v. CPS, a friend's failure to act led to the death of
another friend in a hot car. The defendant was not found guilty, as the
activity was not considered inherently dangerous.

4.Ownership and Control of Property:

Property owners have a duty to prevent crimes on their premises.
Failure to do so can result in criminal liability for aiding and abetting. In
Tuck v. Robson, a publican, was held liable for allowing customers to
drink after hours, aiding their offense under the licensing act.

5.Continuing Act: When a person inadvertently causes harm and

fails to prevent it upon becoming aware, they may be held liable for a
continuing act. In Fagan v. MPC, a defendant parked his car on a
policeman's foot during an argument. Despite being informed, he
refused to move, resulting in liability for his failure to act.

6. Creation of Danger:
Individuals who create dangerous situations for others and fail to
mitigate the risk can be found liable. In R v. Miller, The defendant's
careless act of falling asleep with a lit cigarette caused a fire. Despite
being aware, he failed to act, leading to his conviction for arson.

MENS REA
To establish criminal responsibility, there must be another element
called mens rea otherwise known as criminal knowledge or intention
to commit the offence to support the actus reus which is the prohibited
act or omission.
The court in ABEKE vs. STATE, defined mens rea to mean “the guilty
state of mind. It is the state of mind which the accused must possess
at the time of performing whatever conduct requirements are stated in
the actus reus.”
The prosecution must go beyond establishing the commission of an
unlawful criminal act and prove the criminal mind of the accused
person in committing the crime. The duo element must be proved, i.e.,
they must co-exist.
The Supreme Court in BOLANLE V STATE (2009) held that:
“Prosecution must prove that the accused had mens rea and actus
reus.” Therefore, in criminal liability, both the necessary actus reus
and mens rea must be established and proved by the prosecution
before a suspect can be held liable.
A.G of Northern Ireland v Gallagher
The accused person was charged for murder, he wanted to marry
another woman, so he killed the former one in order to marry a new
one. He claimed that he was drunk. The court held that the
wickedness of his heart, even before he got drunk, was enough to
convict. There was Mens Rea.

How to prove Actus reus Andmens rea

1. Through direct oral evidence: evidence of something within your
personal knowledge i.e. eyewitness not hearsay MAIYEGUN V
STATE, AKPAN V STATE.
2. Through Confessional statement: A.K.A admission of guilt
statement made by an accusing stating or suggesting that he has
committed a crime, he can be convicted solely on his own confession
such when confession such is reliable, irresistible. IGBINOVIA V
STATE, AFOLAYAN V STATE
3. Circumstantial Evidence: this refers to evidence surrounding
where the crime occurs; there is no direct evidence and the accused
person refuses to confess.
The court can draw an inference, such an evidence must be too
compelling as it is quite unsafe to convict solely on circumstantial
evidence EJIGBADERO V STATE.
4. Tendering of exhibits (material things); connecting the defendant
to the crime e.g. weapon used.
5. Through Opinion Expert.

RELEVANCE OF MOTIVE IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY.

For instance, if A intends to kill B the reason behind A committing an
offence is that there is an intent already, the reason for that intent i.e.
what compels a person to commit an offence or instigates the
commission of an offence.
Motive means a driving cause, the motive in which a person commits
an offence is irrelevant in criminal liability, prosecution is not at liberty
or expected to prove motive but to prove a crime beyond reasonable
doubt.
By section 24 CC, the motive for the commission of an offence is
irrelevant.
In law, it is not the duty of the prosecution to prove motive but where
motive is established by the prosecution, though not required or
mandatory it will further strengthen the case of the prosecution if it is
persuasive it may also be relevant when it comes to sentencing by the
court.
A criminal justice system where the law has prescribed the maximum
punishment the court has no discretion to give a greater punishment.
Where the law prescribes a minimum punishment the court has no
discretion to give a lesser judgement out of sympathy or pity.
Where the court is conferred with the discretion of a lesser
punishment motive can be persuasive in giving such a sentence, See
SALAKO V AG WESTERN NIG
Mere absence of any evidence of motive for a crime is not a sufficient
ground upon which to infer mania-R(insanity)
EXCEPTION TO RELEVANCE OF MOTIVE.
● Where an offence is committed under a compulsion. See S.32
CC
● Emergency situation see S.26 CC

RELEVANCE OF ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA IN THE NIGERIA

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
Mens rea and Actus Reus are common law rules.
S.286 S.382 of Criminal Code where the offence of stealing has
been said to have been committed, prosecution must prove what was
stolen and If the owner was meant to have been with the owner in the
first place.
The duo elements/ingredients of an offence are both common law
rules. The question as to whether the Nigeria statutes clearly and
expressly state that for an accused to be tried he must possess
certain actus reus and mens rea is NO, however, the two concepts
could be inferred from the wordings and provisions of our laws
defining each crime.It should be noted that, even though these
elements are not expressly provided for in the statutes, it does not
avail the prosecution from proof of it. The prosecution must establish
the actus reus and mens rea of each offence to secure a conviction.
It should also be noted that the prosecution need not prove actus reus
and mens rea in concept because our laws are silent with mentioning
them as concepts, however, the prosecution must prove them as
ingredients forming an offence. See Alake v Pratt.
It is submitted that even though the Criminal Code Act and the
Penal Code were silent with mentioning the terminologies ‘actus reus’
and ‘mens rea’ in their provisions, they give reasonable recognition to
the duo concepts and same must be proved by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt as ingredient of the offence.

CAUSATION
The rule of causation in criminal liability is there must be a chain
connection or nexus between the act of the accused and the death of
the deceased.
In criminal law, before an accused can be convicted, there must be a
causal link between the act of the accused and the death of the
deceased. If there is a break in the causal chain, the accused would
be held to be free of liability.

Causation is in itself not an ingredient of the crime of murder as actus

reus and mens rea are. However, it is necessary as it connects the
two constituents in a way. An accused with the necessary mens rea
will be liable if it can be shown that it is his conduct that caused the
prohibited result (actus reus).
Section 26 of the PC is impliedly relevant to causation, and in its
absence, courts refer to judicial authorities for guidance.
According to sections 308 and 310 of the criminal code, death can
result directly or indirectly from the actions or inactions of the accused
person. To establish a causal link, the prosecution must prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused's act actually caused the death,
not just that it could have. For example, if someone intends harm but
their action isn't sufficient to cause death, they won't be liable for
murder.

The court has established rules for determining causation:

1) Sine qua non rule: Whoever initiates a course of conduct is
responsible for the subsequent result if it's a normal consequence of
events. If the accused's action alone can cause the result, regardless
of minor factors, they are deemed to have caused it.
In R V HOLLAND , When THE STABBING WAS THE CAUSE of the
death, where the injury led to a tetanus infection that killed the victim
Tetanus is not an act of its own Lord Denning in that case said "if at
the time of death the original wound is still an operating, existing or
substantial cause, the death of the deceased is said to be caused by
the accuse”.

In R V SMITH Both were fighting in a barrack and one was injured

seriously after 2 or 3 months he died, an evidence was showed that
the victim had fell 2 or 3 times before been taken to the hospital, the
court held that it was the injury not the falling that was the cause of his
death. The chain of connection has not been broken in the above case
by the falling down of the accused.
R vs. MALCHEREK; R vs. STEEL (1981) 1 WLR 690 (CA) are
relevant here. In these conjoined appeals both appellants had
attacked women causing their victims serious injuries. In both cases
the victims were placed on life support machines. In both cases
doctors treating the victims decided to switch off the machines on the
basis that there was no prospect of recovery. The appellants
contended that the actions of the doctors in each case should have
been regarded as a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of
causation between the attacks and the deaths, it was held that the
accused act alone was capable and sufficient of causing the death
and were held liable.
2. Actus novus interveniens: Where another factor has intervened
or where there is a contributory factor (Novus actus interveniens) of
course there is a actus reus and mens rea, but the accused won’t be
liable because there was an intervening factor. In R V. JORDAN, the
accused stabbed the deceased in the abdomen, the deceased was
taken to hospital, and the wounds were stitched. Later the deceased
died and the court held that the death wasn’t a result of the stabbing,
but because of medical negligence due to overdose dosage of
Terramycin.
The courts are very careful not to overstretch Novus Intervening. In R
V. PAGETT; the accused used a small girl as a human shield. The girl
died. He argued that he did not cause the death but the police action
of gun duel. But the court rejected this argument.
More so, where a victim consents to his own death, it will not avail the
accused person from liability, that is, the accused will be held liable.
Section 299 of the Criminal Code buttresses this. In the case of
STATE V OKEZI (1972), the accused a native doctor prepared some
charms for the deceased. The deceased then invited the accused to
test the charm on him by firing a shot at him; the accused shot him in
the chest and killed him. The accused was held liable notwithstanding
the consent of the deceased. See also R vs. AKANBI (1962)
W.N.L.R.
3. Where the victim’s own conduct has affected the result. That is
where the victim’s act accelerates the prohibited result of the
defendant’s act. Unlike in civil law, contributory negligence is not a
defense in criminal law. The rule is to take your victim as you meet
him (the thin skull rule/eggshell rule).S.311 of the Criminal Code,
in a situation in which the act of the accused accelerates the death of
the deceased who is suffering from a previous ailment, the accused
would be held liable for his death.
It should be noted that where there is contradictory evidence against
the accused, the court has no option than to discharge and acquit the
accused.
It should also be noted that by the provision of S.310 of the
Criminal Code, a person would be deemed to have killed another if
by threat, intimidation or deceit, he causes that other person to do an
act or make an omission which results in his death.
For example in R V. NWAOKE, the accused got tired of his marriage
with the deceased and asked the deceased to return his bride price to
him. The deceased refused to return the bride price as demanded and
the accused person told the deceased that she shall not eat nor drink.
Subsequently the deceased died. The court held that the accused was
not liable because there was no causation..
Also,the the provision of S312 of the Criminal Code, when a
person causes a bodily injury to another from which death results, it is
immaterial that the injury might have been avoided by proper
precaution on the part of the person injured, or that his death from that
injury might have been prevented by proper care or treatment.
In the case of R V Blaue (1975) Vol 3 All E.R, the accused stabbed
the deceased who was subsequently taken to the hospital. At the
hospital, the victim refused to take blood transfusion because it was
against her faith as a Jehovah witness. The court convicted the
accused for manslaughter. On appeal, the accused contended that the
refusal of the deceased to take transfusion because of her religion
was unreasonable. Thus, it should be held to have broken the causal
chain. The court of appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the
accused's conviction. The court had this to say:
" It has long been the policy of the law that those who use violence on
other people must take their victim as they find them. This, in our
judgment, means the whole man and not just the physical man. It
does not lie in the mouth of the assailant to say that the victim's
religious beliefs which inhibited him from accepting certain kinds of
treatment were unreasonable.”
The question for decision is "what caused her death?" And the
answer is the stab wound. The fact that the victim refused to stop this
end coming about did not break the causal connection between the
act and the death.
It should also be noted that in a situation in which a person causes a
grievous wound on the deceased, he would not be liable for the death
of the deceased if the death, not resulting from the wound or medical
treatment, is caused by a subsequent accident or an event remotely
connected to the wound inflicted. This is due to the fact that in this
situation, the causal chain has been broken by the subsequent event.
However, it should also be noted that according to. In the case of
Oforlete vs The State (2000) vol 12 NWLR pt 681, the accused hit
the deceased on the head with a kitchen stool. Complications didn't
arise until three
months later when the head of the deceased got swollen. He was
rushed to the hospital where he spent two weeks and was
subsequently sent to a psychiatric hospital where he died.
There was contradictory evidence of two medical doctors that there
was the possibility of a different factor causing the death of the
deceased. The trial court convicted the accused. On appeal, the court
of appeal upheld the decision of the trial court. On further appeal to
the Supreme Court, the court set aside the judgment of the lower court
and was of the opinion that in establishing a causal link between the
act of the
for aspects should be left to assumption, speculation or conjecture.
Thus, where there is a long period of time between the act of the
accused and the resultant consequence, stronger evidence has to be
adduced in showing an unbroken link between the act and the
consequence, compared to a situation in which the act and the
consequence are proximate or contemporaneous in matters of time.
In connection, see the provision of section 313 of the criminal
code.
Also, With regards to causation, section 314 of the Criminal Code
provides that for a person to be held liable for causing the death of
another person, the death must occur within a year and a day of the
causal act. See the case of R vs. DYSON (1908).
Concurrence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea:
In criminal law, the act (actus reus) and the mental state (mens rea)
must happen simultaneously for an offense to occur. In the Pollani
case, the accused assaulted the victim but didn't intend to kill.
Believing the victim was dead, he staged a fake suicide by hanging
the victim, resulting in death. The court ruled no concurrence because
the intent to kill didn't coincide with the act of hanging.

Prof Mustapha begins:

MURDER/ CULPABLE HOMICIDE PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH:

The simple meaning is “killing” but we have different killings. As this

class is concerned we shall be focusing on unlawful killings.

See S.33. (1) of CFRN

Every person has a right to life, and no one shall be deprived

intentionally of his life, save in execution of the sentence of a court in
respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in
Nigeria.

Murder of culpable homicide punishable with death. It’s the most

heinous offense against the person. The offense is disastrous
because it is a complete annihilation of the existence of both the victim
and the murderer. Especially if the act of the murderer is adjudged to
be unlawful or unjustified. Life itself is a divine gift because God has
commanded that you must not kill. (Exodus 20:13 and Quran 17:31,
4:103). In those divine law, no one has the competence to terminate
the life that has been made sacred by God. In other words, Homicide
is unlawful if it’s not authorized by law. This is in tandem with S.306 of
CC. A justified killing or lawful killing is provided under the proviso of
the S. 33(2)of CFRN.
2) A person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his life
in contravention of this section, if he dies as a result of the use, to
such extent and in such circumstances as are permitted by law, of
such force as is reasonably necessary -

(a) for the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the
defence of property:

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a

person lawfully detained; or

(c) for the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny.

The crucial issue for determining whether the killing is lawful or

unlawful borders on intention. That’s to say, what is the requisite Mens
rea for the offence of murder.

In the case of R v Moloney(1985) my lord, Bridge in commenting on

Mens rea, he said and I quote:

“Firstly, was death or really serious injury … natural consequence of

the defendant's voluntary act.”

Secondly, “did the defendant foresee those consequences as being

the natural consequence of his act”?

If the answers are yes to both questions, then proper inferences have
been drawn that the defendant intended that consequence.

R v Moloney (1985), the defendant, Moloney, fatally shot his

stepfather during a drunken conversation about their marksmanship
skills. Moloney argued he didn't intend to kill his stepfather but merely
wanted to scare him. The court ruled that foresight of consequences
alone is not sufficient to establish intention; however, it can be strong
evidence of intention. The case established that the jury must consider
the defendant's state of mind and whether they intended the
consequences of their actions, rather than just foreseeing them.

In HYAM V DPP(1974), it was held in that case, foresight by the

accused, if it is being felt that death or grievous bodily harm was
highly probable, then, it is sufficient to determine Mens rea. See R V
CUNNINGHAM(1981)
R v Cunningham [1981] AC 566 House of Lords, The defendant
attacked the victim in a pub believing (wrongly) that the victim had
had sexual relations with his fiancé. The defendant knocked him to
the ground and repeatedly struck him on the head with a bar stool.
The victim suffered a fractured skull and a subdural hemorrhage
from which he died 7 days later. The jury convicted the defendant of
murder having found that he intended really serious harm at the
time of the attack. The defendant appealed, contending that the
law of murder should be confined to those who intend to kill and
thus the decision in R v Vickers was wrongly decided. The defendant
relied upon the dissenting judgment of Lord Diplock in Hyam v DPP.
The court that the requisite mens rea of murder remains intention
to kill or intention to cause GBH(grievous bodily harm)
In Hyam vs DPP (1975) AC, the accused poured petrol into the letter
box of her lover's mistress' house and then ignited it, knowing fully
well that there were persons sleeping inside. This resulted in the death
of the persons inside. In court, she contended that she had no
intention of causing death but had foreseen grievous bodily harm as a
highly probable result of her action. The court rejected her argument
for manslaughter and convicted her for murder.Thus, in determining
intent, there has to be proof that the consequence was a probable
result of the act and was foreseen by the accused.
In the case of Ubani vs The State (2003) vol 18 NWLR p t 851, the
accused and appellant, armed with machetes and guns, beat the
deceased
discharged excreta. As a consequence of this, he died. On appeal the
Supreme Court held that death or grievous bodily harm done to the
deceased was, to the knowledge of the accused, a probable
consequence of his action. Thus, the accused was held guilty.
In GIWA V. STATE, an accused used a machete to beat the
deceased, the court held that the accused was guilty of murder. It was
the opinion of the court that using a matchet to beat someone means
that the person using the matchet intends to cause the death of the
person being beaten.

CAPACITY TO COMMIT MURDER.

The person who commits murder must be responsible, of sound
memory and must have attained the age of discretion.
This is to show that the person must be sane in accordance with the
principle established in R V M'naghten, M’NAGHTEN RULE. This is
in line with section 51 PC S.3 of Homicide act
S. 30 and 28 of CC
The M'Naghten Rule stems from the case of R v M'Naghten
(1843), where Daniel M'Naghten, who suffered from delusions after
wrongly believed that Sir Robert Peel and his government were
conspiring against him, fatally shot Edward Drummond, mistaking him
for the Prime Minister Robert Peel. At trial, M'Naghten was found not
guilty by reason of insanity, leading to public outcry and legal debate.
The House of Lords established the M'Naghten Rule, stating that a
defendant is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the crime, they
were suffering from such a defect of reason due to a mental illness
that they did not know the nature and quality of their act or that it was
wrong. This rule became foundational in English common law and has
been influential in shaping the insanity defense in many legal systems.
See S.51 of PC.
See S. 30 of CC, 50 CC
 VICTIM OF MURDER
According to Smith and Hogan, I their criminal law book, 7th
edition, “victim of murder simply means a person who can be a victim
of an offence in the modern law of offences against the person I.e any
human being”
In determining a living person and a corpse for the offence of murder,
one needs to ascertain at what point during the process of birth a
foetus becomes a person .
This is because it is not a murder to kill a child in the womb or in the
process of leaving the womb.
See Section 58 of offences against persons Act 1861, section 232
of PC and 307 CC.
However if the child is born alive and dies immediately, the injury
caused to the mother will amount to murder For killing to amount to
murder if the injury is the cause of the death of the baby

Section 1, Infant life (preservation) Act 1929.

A child yet unborn has no independent existence from the mother for
killing to amount to murder it requires such independent existence
from the mother.
Otherwise it may be termed as “child destruction” not murder.

Section 5(2) of penal code

The yardstick or test for determining human beings is that the victim
should have been born and have existence independent of its mother.

A classical was given by WILLIAMS, In his book, TEXTBOOK OF

CRIMINAL LAW, he said:
“If a foetus is injured in the womb and is subsequently born alive
but dies as a result of the parental injury, this is murder or
manslaughter”
COKE, a scholar, also gave another example:
“If"D " stabs"B " a pregnant woman whose baby is born alive and
then dies as a result of injury received for the weapon, “D” is
guilty of murder or manslaughter of the child” See, SECTION
309 OF CRIMINAL LAW.

ACCORDING TO MAULE J:
“If a person intending to procure abortion does an which causes
a child to be born so much earlier than the natural time I.e the
child is born in a state much less capable of living and
afterwards dies as a consequence of its exposure to the external
world the person who by her misconduct so brings a child into
the world and put it merely into a situation in which it cannot live
is guilty of murder.”

R v West (1848) vol 2 C & K ER, while an abortion was being carried
out, the baby was delivered prematurely and it was alive. However,
due to external circumstances, the baby died. It was held that in as
much as the baby proceeded alive from its mother's womb, it was a
human being capable of being murdered. Thus, the accused was
convicted for murder.
It should be noted that where it cannot be proved that the child was
born alive, the conviction for murder cannot be secured.
State vs Linus Akpan (1972) UILR.

INGREDIENTS OR REQUIREMENTS OF DETERMINING

HOMICIDE.

● Intention to kill (Mens rea)

● Act of killing (actus reus)

DEFINITION OF MURDER
Section 220 of penal code defines culpable homicide as:
Whoever causes death-
(a)by doing an act with the intention of causing death or such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death; or
(b)by doing an act with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to
cause death; or
c) by doing rash or negligent acts, commit the offence of culpable
homicide.

By the provision of S.316 of the Criminal Code, there are six

circumstances under which a person would be held liable for
murder:
(1) If the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed, or
that of some other person;
(2) if the offender intends to do to the person killed or not some other
person some grievous harm;
(3) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an
unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to
endanger human life;
(4) if the offender intends to do grievous harm to some person for the
purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence which is such that
the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of
facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to
commit any such offence;
(5) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering
things for either of the purposes last aforesaid;
(6) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for
either of such purposes; is guilty of murder.
In the second case it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to
hurt the particular person who is killed.
In the third case it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt
any person.
In the three last cases it is immaterial that the offender did not intend
to cause death or
did not know that death was likely to result.
The summary of the above provisions, we are able to know intent to
kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
Hence, For a prosecution to succeed in a case of murder, it has to be
established that the consequences were presumed or premeditated by
the accused.

Any of the following need to be established before mens rea can

be proved in a murder case:

1. An intention to cause death

2. Intention to inflict grievous bodily harm.
3. Recklessness as to the cause of death.
4. Recklessness as to the infliction of grievous bodily harm.
5. State of mind which may suffice to constitute murder under certain
technical rules.

The onus is on the prosecution to prove intention beyond reasonable

doubt. Although the prosecution may rely on presumption that a man
intends the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACT.
R v Nungu, it was held that the accused did not intend to kill and
as such could not be prosecuted under 316 (1) but (2).

In the case of Hyam V DPP(Supra), the learned Justice stated:

"... If a man in full knowledge of the danger involved and without lawful
excuse deliberately does that which exposes a victim to the risk of
probable grievous bodily harm or death, and the victim dies, the
perpetrator of the crime is guilty of murder and not manslaughter to
the same extent as if he had actually intended the consequences that
flowed. Irrespective of whether he wishes it or not…”

There has been heated debate amongst scholars as to whether or not

intention to inflict or cause grievous bodily harm should be taken as an
intention to kill.

THE PROTAGONIST
The scholars or proponents are of the view that in the general sense
of justice.
Man who causes death by intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm
although actually not intending to kill should not only be punished
severely but should be treated as a murderer.

Those scholars also believe that to eliminate the intent to inflict

grievous bodily harm from the intend to kill in murder case would
encourage the ruthless criminal who kills in furtherance of some
purpose other than killing and it may be said that those do not intend
to kill but only to inflict grievous bodily harm to the victim.
In other words, the proposition is also of the view that if both terms are
not equated, it would aid dangerous criminals who inflict grievous
bodily harm to claim that the infliction of the bodily harm was for
another purpose other than to kill.

THE ANTAGONIST
Those in opposition to this proposition are of the view that in a
situation in which the accused doesn't know that the bodily harm
inflicted is one likely to cause death, the two should not be equated.
Thus, they are of the view that if there is practical difficulty in
determining if the harm is likely to cause death and if the accused
knows it is likely to cause death, then infliction of grievous bodily harm
should not be taken as an alternative to intent to kill.
LIKELIHOOD AND PROBABILITY OF MURDER
Section 221(a)(b) and section of penal code.

It should be noted that by the provision of S.221(b) of the PC, the

words "likely" and "probable" are used.
It would be best if the distinction between these two terms is stressed.
The ambiguity between these two words is explained by S.19 of the
Penal Code. It provides that an act is said to be likely to lead to a
consequence if the consequence resulting from the act is something
that would not surprise a reasonable man.
An event is regarded as having a probable consequence if the
consequence would be considered by a reasonable man as the
normal or natural result of the act.

In the case of Maijamaa vs State (1964) vol 1 ANLR, the accused

and some other people attacked the deceased with sticks and he was
beaten to death. The court convicted them for murder under S.221(b)
and S.79 of the Penal Code. The reasoning of the court was that the
act of a group of people attacking a person with sticks has a probable
consequence of causing death. On appeal, the Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

INGREDIENTS OF MURDER
● 319(1) criminal code of River state
● IDIOK V STATE
● MBANG V STATE
● AKINFE V STATE
● NNUNUKWE V STATE
The ingredients of murder below were listed the above cases and
sections:
 1. There must be killing(actus reus)
2. Killing must be unlawful (voluntary)
3. It must be established that the act or omission of the
accused person caused death(causation)
4. It must be established intentionally(mens rea)

Note that actus reus of murder is causing the death of human beings
in circumstances that are not authorized, justified or excused by the
law. Proof of murder can be direct or through circumstantial evidence.
Suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof.
Any slightest gap or doubts in the mind of the court would be resolved
in the favour of the accused person. See R v West(Supra) and Linus v
west(supra)

In TEGGIVONOR V STATE, it was held that in a charge of murder if

the cause of the death has not been proved, it futile and illogical to
proceed to consider whether it was the accused that caused the death
of the victim at hand.

It should also be noted that there is presumption of law that any

person last seen with the deceased bears full responsibility of the
deceased’s death unless and until it is proved contrary. . In a situation
in which the accused was last seen with the deceased and the
circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and leads to no other
conclusion than that the accused killed the deceased, it leaves no
room for acquittal. See: Mbang vs The State (Supra), Idiok vs The
State (Supra).

A YEAR AND A DAY RULE (S.314) OF CRIMINAL CODE.

By virtue of the provision of S.314 of the Criminal Code, a person
would not be held to have murdered the deceased if the death occurs
a year and a day after the injury is inflicted. The day of the injury is
also reckoned with in this calculation.
R vs Dyson (1908) vol 24 KB, the accused on 13th November 1906,
beat his 3 months old child to unconsciousness and fractured its skull.
On 29 December 1907, he beat the child again severely on the head
and face. On 17th February 1908, after the wounds earlier sustained
were healed, the child was admitted to the hospital, held to be
suffering from traumatic meningitis. In March 1908, the child died.
Due to the fact that from the day of the infliction of the initial injury,
13th November 1906, to the date of death, March 1908, a period of
more than a year and a day had elapsed, the accused wasn't held to
be guilty of murder. He was however convicted of manslaughter.
In the case of Oforlete vs The State (2000) vol 12 NWLR pt 681,
the accused hit the deceased on the head with a kitchen stool.
Complications didn't arise until three months later when the head of
the deceased got swollen. He was rushed to the hospital where he
spent two weeks and was subsequently sent to a psychiatric hospital
where he died. There was contradictory evidence of two medical
doctors that there was the possibility of a different factor causing the
death of the deceased. The trial court convicted the accused.
On appeal, the court of appeal upheld the decision of the trial court.
On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the court set aside the
judgment of the lower court and was of the opinion that in establishing
a causal link between the act of the accused and the relevant
consequence as a factual question, no aspect of the enquiry should
be left to assumption, speculation or conjecture. Thus, where there is
a long period of time between the act of the accused and the resultant
consequence, stronger evidence has to be adduced in showing an
unbroken link between the act and the consequence, compared to a
situation in which the act and the consequence are proximate or
contemporaneous in matters of time.

CAUSING OF DEATH BY THREAT OR INTIMIDATION

SECTION 310 OF CRIMINAL CODE.
 It should also be noted that by the provision of S.310 of the Criminal
Code, a person would be deemed to have killed another if by threat,
intimidation or deceit, he causes that other person to do an act or
make an omission which results in his death.
In the case of R V Nwaoke (1939) Vol 5 WACA, the accused
threatened the deceased with a charm that if he didn't pay up the debt
that he owed the accused, he would not be able to eat or sleep and he
would subsequently die. Subsequently, the deceased was depressed
and he committed suicide.
The trial court convicted the accused. On appeal, the West African
Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the ground that there was no
causal link between the threat of the accused and the subsequent
suicide of the deceased. Thus, the accused was discharged and
acquitted.

PUNISHMENT OF MURDER
See S.319 CC

MANSLAUGHTER/CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT PUNISHABLE

WITH DEATH.
Unlawful killing which does not amount to murder.
Manslaughter can be regarded as being the twin of murder.
According to the provision of S.317 of the Criminal Code, any killing
that doesn't amount to murder would be regarded as manslaughter.

A lot of scholars, particularly Clarkson & Keating are of the view

that manslaughter occurs when there is the actus reus of murder but
the offender is not entirely blameworthy so as to warrant the offence of
murder.

CLASSIFICATION OF MANSLAUGHTER
● Voluntary manslaughter
● Involuntary manslaughter
● Reckless manslaughter
● Gross negligence manslaughter
 Voluntary Manslaughter
This is a situation in which the accused kills the deceased through
provocation. Where provocation is successfully pleaded, the charge of
murder would be reduced to manslaughter. Thus, the raising of the
defense of provocation in murder trials has now become a common
plea. Provocation is pleaded due to the fact that if one is convicted for
murder, such person would be sentenced to death. See: S.318 CC,
S.283 CC and S. 222 (1) РС.
The rationale behind voluntary manslaughter is stated by Conklin in
his book Criminology, he raised the issue of victim precipitation of a
crime by saying that the person who suffers eventual harm from a
crime might
have played a direct role in causing that crime to be committed or
perpetrated.
This provides a ground for justifying the defence of provocation which
reduces the offence from murder to manslaughter.
The victim must have been the master behind the harm inflicted on
him.
For example the homicide victim may be the first to use force.
CONKLIN argued that the defence of provocation in murder cases
may be that the victim is the one who provoked the assault that led to
his death. This argument appears to provide justification for the
offence of murder to be reduced to manslaughter.

This position gained credence by the provision of S.3 of the English

Homicide Act (1957) which provides inter-alia that:

"In a charge of murder, where there is evidence on which the jury can
find that the person charged was provoked, whether by things done or
said or both, by the deceased which warrants the accused to lose his
self control. All these shall be taken into account in the defence of
provocation."

It is pertinent to note that the trial court should put into consideration
everything, both done and said, according to the effect which is in the
opinion of the the trial judge would have been done by the reasonable
man .

In the case of R vs Doughty (1986) vol 83 C.A.R the accused was

to take care of his baby and the home at the same time. This was due
to the fact that his wife had a cesarean section and could not assist.
On a particular night, his 17 day old baby was crying profusely and the
accused, in an attempt to stop the crying, covered the baby's mouth.
Due to his exhaustion and confusion, he pressed too hard and it
resulted in the baby's death.
At the trial court, it was held that this could not amount to provocation.
On appeal, the court of appeal held that the circumstances of the
scenario could end up provoking the man and thus, his sentence was
reduced from murder to manslaughter.

In R vs Bassey (1963) vol 1 ANLR, the accused was attacked by the

deceased and some others while he was in his sitting room. During
the course of this attack, the accused defended himself with a pen
knife while his assailants were without weapons. The accused
delivered four blows to the deceased in quick succession. The trial
court held that in this instance the defence of self defence or
provocation would not be adequate.
On appeal, the Supreme Court held that while the defence of self
defence would not avail, provocation would. This was due to the fact
that the four blows delivered were done in a matter of seconds and
thus, there was no time for tempers to cool. The sentence was thus
reduced to manslaughter.
See R V SENIOR AND DUFY V R

In the case of Mareni vs The State (2010) vol 3 NWLR pt 1181, the
court provided three ingredients that needed to be proved in an
offence of manslaughter:
1. The death of a human being took place.
2. Such death was caused by the accused.
3. The accused intended such an act to cause death or such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death or it was caused by a rash or
negligent act.

Lastly in the case of Ewo Akang vs The State (1971) vol 1 ANLR, in
giving the ingredients of of defence of provocation the court stated:
“Provocation which reduces what will otherwise amount to murder to
manslaughter is a legal concept. It is of paramount importance in the
consideration of this concept that the act held out as a natural and
justifiable reaction of the provoked person was done not in
self-revenge, but in ventilation of a natural, sudden and
contemporaneous feeling of anger caused by the circumstances of the
occasion."
Involuntary Manslaughter
This is a killing that is done unintentionally and independent of
the will of the accused person. See S.24 CC, , S.4, 5, 6 of Federal
Highway Act (1971), State vs Felix Usifo (1977) Vol 1 NMLR,
Moses vs The State (2006) vol 1 NWLR pt 992.
RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER
It is basically an offence of causing death by dangerous driving during
See S.4 of Federal Highway Act (1971), State vs Felix Usifo (1977)
Vol 1 NMLR, Moses vs The State (2006) vol 11 NWLR pt 992. State
v Isiah Ajayi.

GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER

This is a failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably
prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation. Gross
Negligence connotes culpable carelessness I.e lack of slight diligence
or care.
In the case of R V PETTICE, it was held that the defendant must
have been indifferent to or had failed to advert to serious risk.
This means the defendant who realizes that there might be a risk but
rules it out
In IDRIS V STATE, the accused person was a driver of a trailer and at
about 7pm on that fateful day, the accused’s trailer broke down at the
expressway. He left the vehicle in the middle of the road but went
ahead to cut some leaves and placed them a short distance from the
vehicles as a sign of warning to other road users. He left for Lagos to
inform his employer about the incident. He couldn’t return on that
same day. The following morning when he returned to the scene he
discovered that a car had run into the rear of the trailer and the driver
of the vehicle was found dead. He reported to the police and was
arrested. He was charged for the offence of murder. It was held that
for an act to constitute criminal negligence. The act must not be a
simple lack of care or mere inadvertent but gross negligence. The
negligence of the degree required to establish manslaughter. It must
br revealed and proved by the prosecution and it must go beyond
tortuous negligence or civil liabilty.
In UZOKA V STATE, it was held that it is an offence to do a lawful act
in a negligent manner.
In AG WESTERN NIGERIA V OYELADE, the accused person was a
native doctor that was invited to treat the deceased with a swollen
scrotum, the accused person gave the deceased some medicine to
drink and the de caused died from the injury sustained in the scrotum.
The native doctor was charged for murder.
The trial court observed as follows:
“If a person takes upon himself the responsibility of attending to a
patient when he is not qualified for the purpose and uses a dangerous
dru for the patient. He is bound to bring skill or expertise to its use. If
his patient makes the use of the dangerous amount due to his lack of
skill it and the patient dies. The person administering the drugs is
guilty of such criminal negligence that amount to the manslaughter”
The punishment for manslaughter, as provided for in S.325 of the
Criminal Code, is life imprisonment.
RAPE(sexual offences)
Historically, the law of rape was particularly concerned with virginity.
The law preoccupied itself with protecting virgins from rape. The law of
rape was originally enacted to also protect the rich, whose daughters
and wives might be assaulted, rather than protecting women
generally. The law is interested in protecting male property in the
female body.
According to Maclarlane, in earlier times the offences of rape was
linked more with notions of property and theft than with the principle
concerning the security of persons.
According to the provision of S.357 of the Criminal Code, rape
occurs when a person has unlawful carnal knowledge of woman
without her consent, if with her consent, by means of threat or
intimidation, by means of fraudulent misrepresentation as to the act or
by impersonating her husband.

The meaning of "unlawful carnal knowledge is expressly provided for

in S. 6 of the Criminal Code. defines unlawful carnal knowledge as:
"Carnal connection Which takes place otherwise than between
husband and wife."
The section also further states that an important element of carnal
knowledge or carnal connection is penetration.
Also, rape has been defined by S.282 of the Penal Code. It
provides:
(1) A man is said to commit rape who, except in the case referred to in
subsection (2) of this section, has sexual intercourse with a woman in
any of the following
circumstances-
(a) Against her will;
(b) Without her consent;
(c) With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting
her in fear of death or of hurt:
(d) with her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband
and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another
man to whom she is or
believes herself to be lawfully married;
(e) With or without her consent, when she is under fourteen years of
age or of unsound mind.
(2) Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife is not rape, if she
has attained to puberty.
Section 31(1)(2) Child right Act
Section 1 of sexual Act 1956
Section 1 of VAP act
In the case of Upahar v The State (2003) Vol 6 NWLR pt 816 the
court held that to establish the offence of rape, the prosecution
has to prove the following ingredients of rape:

1.That the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.

2. The sexual intercourse was done under the provision of S. 282(1)
of the PC.
3. The prosecutrix wasn't the wife of the accused or if she was the
wife, had not attained the age of puberty.
4. The accused had the mens rea to have sexual intercourse with the
prosecutrix without her consent, or he was reckless and careless
regarding her consent.
5. There was penetration.
The ingredients were also listed in the following cases
OBIAKOR V STATE
STATE V OJO
OKOYOMON V STATE
Note that the court is being warned not to convict the accused person
on all In corroborated evidence against the defendant. I.e the nature
and the content of the corroborated evidence must only corroborate
and support the claim of the prosecution that the accused person
actually raped her.
Note that it is immaterial that the same evidence corroborates the
same other portions of the evidence of the prosecutrix.
In the offence of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be
corroborated in order to secure conviction. Also, a person cannot be
convicted of raping a child under the age of 13 on the uncorroborated
testimony of one witness.
The evidence of the prosecutrix must unequivocally implicate the
accused.
In the case of Sambo vs The State (1993) Vol 6 NWLR pt 300, the
appellant asked the prosecutrix, a young girl of eleven, to bring water
into his room. Upon bringing the water, he played loud music and he
alleged that he danced with the prosecutrix. After the prosecutrix left
the room, she was crying and blood was found on her thighs by her
sister. She told her sister that she was raped by the accused. Her
sister then reported the case to the police for rape.
At the trial court and the court of appeal, the accused was convicted of
rape. At the Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, the court held that
the testimony of the prosecutrix alleging rape was not corroborated by
other external evidence. Thus, in this situation, a conviction for rape
could not be secured.
See Queen vs Omishade (1964) NMLR, Njovens vs The State
egede(1973) NMLR, Rabiu vs The State (2005) Vol 7NWLRpt 925,

Actus Reus of rape

In the offence of rape, the actus reus is penetration while the mens
rea is the intention to have unlawful carnal knowledge.,
According to Smith and Hogan, the slightest penetration will
suffice. Any penetration of the female genitals is enough under
common law. It is not necessary to prove that the hymen is raptured.
Mens rea of rape
It is basically the INTENTION to have sexual intercourse with a
woman without her consent. See DPP V Morgan
Note that establishing Mens rea of rape the prosecution must
prove:
1. The defendant has intention to have sexual intercourse with the
victim without her consent.
2. The defendant knew the victim was not consenting.
3. The defendant was aware that the victim might not be
consenting or did not believe that the victim was not consenting.
4. An intention to have intercourse with a woman being indifferent
whether she consents or not.
Rape under Violence Against Persons Prohibition Act.
The aim is to see if there is a distinction between the provisions of the
Penal Code and Criminal Code and the VAPP Act 2015.
According to Section 1 of Violence Against Persons Prohibition Act,
rape is defined as having a sexual intercourse or having penetration
between a man and a girl, or with any instrument it further highlights 3
other places where penetration could occur.
They are:
● Vagina
● Anus
● Mouth
That means the Violence Against Persons Prohibition Act 2015 has
expounded as to what amounts to rape.
It is an offshoot from the Criminal Code and Penal Code.
Any instrument or part of the body would suffice.
It is also similar with what is obtainable in other jurisdiction e.g. The
United Kingdom Sexual Offences Act 2003 is in pari materia. One
distinction between them is that not only a woman can be a victim but
also a male due to the use of the term "any persons".
Their own definition is not only within the context of a girl but that rape
could be against any persons irrespective of your gender.

Capacity to rape: Section 30 of Criminal Code there are 2 persons

who are incapable of committing an offence of rape. :
● any person below age 7 is incapable of having criminal intent (it
is an irrebuttable presumption)
The first is general.
● the second a male child below the age of 12 is incapable of
having carnal knowledge (this is also an irrebuttable
presumption).
Those two capacity of persons lack the capacity to commit rape.
If it is a case of husband and wife, because the law presumes that
there is an existence of a conjugal relationship between the two of
them the husband has the capacity to swim in the river of the woman
and garnish her account.
But the husband can be charged for indecent assault where there is
an incidence of force.
Section 2(a) of VAPPA on the issue of capacity is more expansive as
it states that “where the offender is under the age of 14 years, the
offender is liable to a maximum of 14 years imprisonment”.
Punishment for rape.
Under section 258 of the Criminal Code life imprisonment with or
without canning.

S. S283 of the Penal Code, extend to 14 years imprisonment

Under penal code the court is CSC given discretionary powers,

but the Criminal code does not give the court discretionary
powers.
See IDI V STATE, LUCKY V STATE.
 ATTEMPT TO RAPE
SECTION 359 of CC stipulate that a person who attempts to
commit the offence of rape is guilty of felony, and is liable to
imprisonment for fourteen years, with it without caning.
See EDWIN V STATE, OFFIONG V STATE (deals with an attempt
to rape). AND

Robbery and Armed Robbery

Section 401 of the Criminal Code Act in Nigeria. Definition of

robbery and SECTION 296 Of penal code.

Note section 15(1) of the robbery and firearms(special

provisions) act is also pari materia with section 401 of CC.

S.401: Any person who steals anything and, at or immediately before

or immediately after the time of stealing it, uses or threatens to use
actual violence to any person or property in order to obtain or retain
the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being
stolen or retained, is said to be guilty of robbery.

Offense of robbery can be seen as a crime against property or person.

section 8(1)A of the theft act of 1968. A person is guilty of

robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of
doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or
puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there
subjected to force.

Note that, all the elements of theft must be proved or established

before the prosecution sustains conviction.

Also note that it is not an offense of Robbery if the accused person

believes that he has the right to deprive the victim of the right to
property. See the case of R v Robinson, where the accused person
demanded that the victim repay a debt owed to his wife, he had the
knife to reinforce the demand. He was charged for robbery. The court
held that the offence did not constitute robbery because the accused
act did constitute robbery. The accused thought he had the legal right
to the money. This case of R V Robinson was distinguished from the
case of R v Forester where the accused had no claim of right and
was dishonest and all the elements of theft were Proved by the
prosecution and he used force immediately before stealing and he
was eventually convicted for the offense of armed robbery.

See the case of R v Bekum, in the case, the victim and his
companion deposited valuable property in the house of the accused
person and they went out shopping. On their way home, they were
killed by the accused person, who intended to and did in fact steal the
valuables for the victim. He was convicted for robbery.

This case was distinguished from Njuguna V R: the accused person

bungled a house and stole the property therefrom. He was discovered
without a chase at a distance of about 500 yards away. Where he then
resisted the owner with violence. It was held that the case was not
robbery but burglary and theft because the elements of using violence
immediately after the act was lacking.

See Tanko v State —- the ingredients of the offense of robbery and

armed robbery were listed.

● Abdullahi V state
● Dibie and ors V state
● Pozim V state.

All the cases mentioned above comment on the elements or

ingredients of Robbery.

Ingredients:
 1. Theft by the accused person.
2. Causing halt or wrongful restraint on the victim by the the
accused
3. The act complained of must be done in the process of
committing the theft or in order to commit theft and/or carry away
the properties obtained by the theft.
4. The accused person did the act complained of voluntarily
5. That the accused person or persons was/ were with dangerous
weapons while committing the offence in question. In other
words, there was robbery, the robbery was an armed robbery
and the accused person was among those who took part in the
robbery

In the case of Balogun V AG Ogun state, The accused and two

others forced their way into the compound of the victim, severely
injuring his night watchman in the process. They entered the victim’s
house and after about three hours, they left. The victim, in his
statement to the police, averred that the accused and co had taken
N1,000 and some jewelry from his home but did not testify to this
effect at the trial.

The court held that the accused was only guilty of attempted robbery
and conspiracy to rob because: it is necessary for the prosecution to
prove that something was actually stolen in order to succeed in a
charge for armed robbery. “The failure in the evidence of PW1 to
establish that money or property was stolen was a failure to prove a
necessary ingredient of the offence of armed robbery.

•Note that in pronouncing the death penalty, it doesn’t lie with the trial
court but with the governor of the state to pronounce the mode and
procedure for the sentencing.

In Ikem v State, The victims were accosted on the Asaba bridge and
robbed of the sum of twenty naira. They alleged that they were
stopped on the road by a figure waving a flashlight and robbed by two
persons in civilian clothing who later ran into the bush. They went
back to the scene with the police and the victims later identified the
accused as one of the robbers on a “suspicion”. The charge failed on
the basis that the prosecution failed to positively identify the accused
as one of those who took part in the robbery and also failed to prove
the weapon(s) allegedly used in the robbery. It was further held that
the Governor of a state is the only competent authority to prescribe
how the death sentence is carried out under the Robbery and
Firearms Act and not the court.

In Tanko V state(Supra),The appellant and six others were alleged

to have robbed one Alhaji Zakari Mohammed of his video machine
and money and in the course of execution of their action caused Alhaji
Zakari Mohammed serious bodily injury resulting in his death. It was
held that It has been decided through judicial authorities that the
foundation of the offense of armed robbery is the existence of a clear
act that amounts to STEALING.

was held that the appellate court cannot trash or quash the decision of
the lower court.

THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT THAT CAN ENTERTAIN THE

CASE OF ARMED ROBBERY AND ROBBERY CASE:

Jurisdiction matter as regards Robbery was settled in the case of

Emelogun V state. It was held that the HIGH COURT OF THE
STATE has power or jurisdiction to hear and determine the case of
robbery and armed robbery.

In other words, it is the AG of the state that has the power to

prosecute the offence of robbery and armed robbery.

In the case of EYISI v. State, Note that in establishing the offense of

armed robbery, the weapon used must be established.
In the case of John Nwachukwu V. State, In the case, the exhibit
tendered to the court was a toy gun. The court held that a toy gun is
not normally made or adopted for causing injury to the person and it
is not capable of being used as an offensive weapon but a plaything
for children. Therefore, a toy guy is neither a firearm nor an offensive
weapon.

See S.1 and 4 of the Robbery and firearm Act.

PUNISHMENT FOR ROBBERY AND ARMED ROBBERY.

See Section Section 402 of CC, S.298 of PC .

Note the following cases:

Gathuri Njuguna v. The Republic
In Gathuri Njuguna v. The Republic [1965] E.A. 583 the High Court of
Kenya held that the essence of the offense of robbery is an openly
committed theft from or in the presence of someone or a theft where
the offender is caught more or less in the act or immediately after the
act and that it did not extend to a case where the offence was
committed clandestinely without discovery or chase until after the
offender had left the premises and had proceeded so far on his way
without being discovered to be the thief. In that case the accused was
found running away from a house which he had burgled and, on being
caught, used force to retain the goods he had stolen and it was held
that the conviction should have been for burglary and theft and not for
robbery
BELLO V. THE STATE
The accused was alleged to have robbed a shop in Itoko market along
with two others. He was chased by the victims and apprehended
shortly thereafter. After the trial, the accused was convicted based on
the reasoning that he failed to controvert the evidence that
prosecution led against him despite the fact that he denied them and
gave another version of the story. His conviction was overturned on
appeal on the basis that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not
the accused.
The ingredients of the offense of armed robbery are:
(i) That there was a robbery or a series of robberies.
(ii) That each robbery was an armed robbery.
(iii) That the accused was one of those who took part in the armed
robberies
Haruna v State
The accused were alleged to have chased the victim and robbed on
his way back from work. The evidence led by the prosecution at the
trial was however conflicting and their main witness led evidence that
the complainant was chased into his hotel premises by the accused
and he happened upon them beating up the complainant and
demanding their “share of the money”. He averred that he settled the
accused with N5, after which they left the complainant.
Held: “armed robbery means simply stealing plus violence used or
threatened”. Where there is a charge of using weapons, the weapons
must be strictly proved. Also, where there is a charge of wounding, the
wound must be proved. Accused were not guilty because “On the
evidence of P.W. 2. It appears to me that the appellants were taking
from P.W.1 what they believed they were entitled to, that is to say
something over which they believed they had a claim of right. Taking
such from him in the circumstances cannot in my view amount to
stealing. Addition of violence or threat of violence in the circumstances
may amount to another offence, which was not charged, but certainly
it could not amount to armed robbery for the simple reason that an
important element of the offence. i.e. stealing was lacking.”
STRICT LIABILITY
Strict liability offences are those offences the prosecution does not
need to prove intention(Mens rea).
Strict liability offences do not need Mens rea, only actus reus need to
be proved.
See Sweet V parsley [1970], Mrs. Parsley rented out her farmhouse
to students who grew cannabis and smoked it without her knowledge.
She was charged under the Dangerous Drugs Act but acquitted
because she had no knowledge of the illegal activity on her property.
The case established the principle that both actus reus and mens rea
are required for criminal liability. It was held in the case that the
prosecution only needed to prove actus reus in the offences under
strict liability.

It is not in all offences that the prosecution is required to prove both

the physical and the mental elements. Strict liability offences are
offences in which the law requires the prosecution to prove the
physical element only. These are the offences in which the enacting
authority dispenses with the proof of the mental element.
In strict liability offences a successful proof of the physical element is
enough to secure a conviction against the accused person.
JUSTIFICATION FOR STRICT LIABILITY.
The rationale behind strict liability offenses is more or less an absolute
liability offense, absolute Liability offence means the accused is guilty
without a mental element. Hence, the accused person will be denied
the defence both at common law and statute.
In Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Storkwain Ltd[1986],
Storkwain Ltd., a pharmaceutical company, was found guilty of
selling drugs without a prescription, which was a violation of the
Pharmacy and Medicines Act 1941. Storkwain argued that they had
taken all reasonable precautions to ensure compliance with the law.
However, the House of Lords held that strict liability applied to the
offense, meaning the company was liable regardless of their intentions
or precautions. This case established the principle of strict liability in
regulatory offenses, emphasizing public safety over individual fault.

Note that for us to have that falls under the strict liability offence,
it has to be in a written law.

BASIS OR REASONS FOR STRICT LIABILITY.

1. It helps to prevent prohibited acts because it keeps people on
their toes.
2. Without strict liability offenses in our criminal law, many of the
accused persons will plead not guilty, and the prosecuting
authorities may neither have time or enough authority to litigate
or prosecute.
3. Those responsible for enforcement usually exercise their
discretion and rarely prosecute in a complete absence of fault.
4. The existence of specific statutory defences in some cases helps
to alleviate possible injustice.
5. In overall, strict liability offenses are incorporated in Criminal law
to protect public interest and welfare.
See Yeandel V Fisher and Searle v Randolph
In other words, if there is no provision that defines an offences, if the
law does not provide that Mens rea can be waived, then the
prosecution has to prove the mental element. If the prosecution is able
to prove prima facie case against the defendant.

INSTANCES OR EXAMPLES OF STRICT LIABILITY.

For example in examinations, a student is found with expo papers, he
is strictly liable whether he intended to cheat or he was merely
negligent. See the case of R. v. Efana
Road traffic offence: whether you deliberately or negligently without
having your papers/licence. It is an offence not to stop at Zebra
offense; all these are offenses that are strict liability. This is an
exception to the fact that an offense committed without intention, does
not give rise to liability.
Abortion:
It is in two stages whether the person wants to terminate her
pregnancy herself wilfully and intentionally, that amounts to abortion
whether a child is involved or not. Once it can be shown that there
was pregnancy it can be shown the person has committed an offence.
S229 CC - 7 Years imprisonment as punishment.
The person who assists e.g. a medical doctor that assists in
conducting abortion illegally would be liable to 14 years imprisonment.
S228 CC
If a person trades in substances used for abortion it is also an offence
and carries an imprisonment of 3 years S.230 CC.

Incest
The process in which two person close by affinity get married or are
involved in sexual activities e.g. Siblings
S .3 Matrimonial Cause Act, S.33 of Marriage Act it is an offence.
Cross River Punishment of Incest Law 1956.Punishment ranges from
2, 3 or 5 years.

Weight of punishment is dependent on whether they had

foreknowledge of their relationship.
Section 25 of Violence against Persons (Prohibition) Act (VAPP)
makes it a Crime for Anyone to Commit Incest.
As said earlier Incest is an indecent Sexual act which Causes
penetration with a person who is to his/her Knowledge his/ her:
Daughter, Son, parent, Grandparent, Grandchild, Sibling, Niece/
Nephew, Aunty/ Uncle. This is an Offence punishable by minimum of
5-10 years Imprisonment depending on whether or not both parties
Consent to it.
Section 214 (3) of criminal code Act, Law of the Federation of
Nigeria (LFN) 1990. Anthony Omoruyi V State..

Infanticide:
Killing of an infanticide of a person less than 1 years old. A person can
be charged for murder and convicted for infanticide S327, S325 CC,
5234-
234 ACJA.
The offence of infanticide is punishable by an imprisonment of 2
years.

Seduction:
When a person is lured towards having sexual intercourse. And
seduction has a lot of components which include indecent practices
between males, females and between a male and a female can be
regarded as seduction.
S.216 - 233 of the Criminal Code Act talks about. The penalty for the
offense of seduction is 7 years without an option of fine, defilement of
a girl or defilement of idiots is also an offence which is punishable up
to life imprisonment idiots e.g. imbecile, Engaging in prostitution is a
form of seduction, it is punishable by 2 years imprisonment.
If a person counsels, encourages or facilitates a person under the age
of 18 to get involved in prostitution also an offence carries a sentence
of 2 years.
Indecent act in public also carries 2 years imprisonment.
Keeping a brothel meant for indecent activities has committed an
offence, penalty of 2 years imprisonment.

Prof Sambo:

PARTIES TO AN OFFENCE(PARTICEPS CRIMINIS)

Parties to an offence are persons who have contributed whether
directly or indirectly to an act which constitutes an offence as defined
by the codes. That is those who have contributed to the commission of
an offence.
JOINT ACT: When two or more persons with common intention have
committed an offence; then they will all be held liable.

By the virtue of Section 7 of criminal code, a person is said to be a

party to an offence if:
a. Every person who actually does the act or makes the omission
which constitutes the offences
b. Every person who does or omits to do an act for the purpose of
enabling or aiding another person to commit an offence.
c. Every who aids or abets another committing the offense.
d. Any person who counsels or procures the commission of an
offense.

IDIKA V. R it was held that the words of counseling or procuring must

involve some positive act of encouragement to those who commit the
offence.
NOTE THE FOLLOWING:
● Aiding means when you help someone to commit an
offence.
● Abet means to instigate, encourage the commission of a
crime.
● A person may be an accessory before the fact or accessory
after the fact.

NOTE:
For a person to be a party to an offence, two things must be present:
● the knowledge that offence is about to be commited.
● The intention to participate in the offence.

NOTE: That knowledge and intention is very important in determining

whether a person is a party to an offence.
The intention can be can be proved from
The fact of the fact and circumstances of each case.
The law is that the fact that a person who was standing at the scene of
a crime does not make him a party to the crime. Where, he however
procures or abets the commission of the crime, he becomes an
accomplice.

See PETER V STATE (2018) LPELR 44357 SC KOLAWOLE V

STATE (2015)
LPELR 2400 SC, it was held in the above cases that when a
person doesn’t have knowledge or intention that a crime is about
to be committed, then such a person cannot said to be a party to
an offence. The Cases also discussed the what constitutes a
party to an offence or the ingredients.
This is was the position in the case of In R V. SOLOMON, it was held
that the provisions of S.7CC should not be interpreted in isolation. The
court stated that the provisions of S.7 of CC should be interpreted in
line with the provision of S.24 of CC. This means that a person must
possess a blameworthy mind before he can be held liable under the
provisions of S. 7 of CC. That is there must be mense rea for liability
under S.7 of CC. Under S.7(a) & (d) the required mens rea is intention
but under S. 7 (b) & (c) the required mens rea is intention and
knowledge

• AIDING: For a person to be said to have aided a crime, the

following ingredients must be fulfilled:
1. That a crime was committed.
2. That the action of the defendant assisted in the commission of
the crime.
3. That the person has the intention to commit the crime and has
knowledge that a crime is about to be committed. KOLAWOLE V
STATE.

• ABETTING: Abettment under the Penal code: a person could

commit an offence with his own hand, he is called the PRINCIPAL. A
person may not necessarily commit it himself, he then lets someone
do it for him, he is the ABETTOR while those used are called the
ABETTED PERSONS.
Thus the abetted persons become the PRINCIPAL OFFENDER. S.
84 of P.C defines abetment.

S. 83 of PC, says a person is said to have abetted a crime, if

1. He instigates any person to commit a crime.
2. He Engages in conspiracy to do an illegal act.
 3. He Intentionally facilitates an illegal act OGWUCHE V STATE
(2020) LPELR 1832 SC MAMMAN V STATE (1976) LPELR SC

OFFENCES COMMITTED IN PROSECUTION OF COMMON

PURPOSE. See section 8 of CC
There will be a common intention to commit a crime once there is an
agreement and knowledge that a crime is about to be committed,
common purpose.
Please note that a person may be regarded as a co-principal if he
agrees with others to commit the offence, it is immaterial that he
did not actually and personally commit the offence e.q. when two
persons agree to engage in dangerous car racing and one of
them kills a person the two of them are co-principals.
Also, when two persons agree to beat an individual one merely
holds the hands of the victim without beating but the other one
supplies the blows the two of them are regarded as co-principals.

JOINT ACT
Joint Act is a unique way of classification of offence in the Penal code.
S. 79 of P.C. provides that where two or more people with common
intention agree to carry out a criminal wrong and it was indeed carried
out, they are all liable. In R V. ATANYI the accused persons killed the
deceased and were all jointly held for homicide. Also in STATE V.
MAIJAMAA the accused person attacked and killed a policeman. It
was held that they had the common intention and were all jointly
liable. This has also been said and settled in R V. ALAGBA

ACCESSORIES BEFORE AND AFTER THE FACT.

Accessories before the fact: these include those having the
Knowledge that an offence is about to be committed, aided or assisted
in the commission or preparation for the offence either by counseling,
procuring, or commanding the commission of the offence but where
themselves not present at the commission or execution stage.S.7(b)
of CC provides that anybody who does or omits to do an act for the
purpose of enabling another person to commit an offence is a principal
offender.

ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT

S. 10 of CC provides that a person shall be liable as accessory after
the fact of an offence if he assists or receives a person who, to his
knowledge, has committed an offence in order to escape punishment.
Exceptions are husband and wife, they can’t be accessories after the
fact while assisting or receiving their husband or wife in order to
escape punishment.
By virtue of S.519 of CC, the punishment for accessory after the fact
is imprisonment for a period not more than two years if the substantive
offence is a felony. However it should be noted that by virtue of S.322
& 40(1) of CC the punishment for accessory after the fact of murder
and treason is imprisonment for life.
In addition, by virtue of S.520 & 521 of CC, the punishment for
accessory after the fact of an offence where the offence is a simple
offence or misdemeanor is one-half of the punishment for that offence.

The wording of S.10 of CC shows that intention to assist and the

knowledge of commission of crime are the required mental element for
liability as accessory after the facts of an offence.

Note that a person who alerts the criminal that police are on their
way is an accessory after the fact. OGWUCHE V STATE(2018)
Innocent Agency
This would occur when a person is sent on an errand courier services
(dispatch riders) who may not know the content of the message,
however they must be a registered courier company before they can
be availed of the advance of an innocent agency.
They must be able to give relevant information about the sender,
unless they would be held liable.

A by-stander at a place where an offence is committed no matter how

callous cannot be regarded as a party to an offence, except he does
any act which suggests that he aids or abets the commission of the
crime. YAKUBU V STATE (1980) 324 SC pt 84, the two appellant
were committed for murder, the prosecution claimed that the accused
assaulted and killed the deceased. Some witnesses testified that the
1st appellant actively participated in the assault while others stated
that he was not. The trial court held that he didn’t not participate in the
commission of the crime but he did not intervene to stop the assault
and convicted him. The Supreme Court held that the mere presence
and callousness of the accused at the scene didn’t not render him
guilty as long as he didn’t give encouragement or assistance to the
principal offender. The same thing was held the case of IRIRI V
STATE (2018) LPELR 45042 CA S.7of the Criminal Code

ABANDONMENT —- when someone has an initial intention to commit

but later abandons it. Abandonment cannot make someone a party to
an offence.

INGREDIENTS OF PROVING ABANDONMENT

1. The intention to commit the crime must be truly abandoned
2. The notice of abandonment was clearly communicated to the
other party/parties
 3. The person pleading abandonment took some practical steps to
ensure his abandonment has an effect on the commission of the
crime
4. The offence must have been committed without him.

Offences against persons- Kidnapping.

Kidnapping Simply means putting someone in possession

against his Will either through the use of words and/ or offensive
weapon.

Kidnapping is the unlawful detention of a person through the use of

force, threats, fraud or enticement. The main purpose is to illicit gain,
economic or material, in exchange for liberation. It is the act of taking
a person or group of persons into captivity in order to achieve a
defined aim. The act places a victim on hostage for the purpose of
using the abducted to attain a goal. Therefore, to kidnap, there must
be two parties which include the living-prey on one hand and the
heartless-predator who are there to manipulate terror, in order to attain
an outlined objective.

DEFINITION OF KIDNAPPING

S1 Kidnapping Prohibition Law of Lagos State 2017, kidnapping is

the taking of a person, from one place to another without the person's
consent for the purpose of ransom taking, hostage or ritual killing.

Section 2 of the Kidnapping Prohibition Law, 2017, further defines

kidnapping thus;

“any person who-

1. forcibly takes, holds, abducts, detains or captures;

 2. instill(s) fear in another for the purpose of kidnapping through
coercion the person's will with intent to demand ransom.”

See S.364 of CC and 271 of PC.

PUNISHMENT

S.2 Kidnapping Prohibition Law of Lagos State 2017, the

Punishment for kidnapping is life imprisonment however, where death
occurs as a result of kidnapping the punishment is mandatory death
penalty. The death can be by hanging, lethal injection, or as the court
may direct.

By virtue of section 364 CC, the punishment for the offence of

kidnapping is ten (10) years imprisonment.

By virtue of section 273 CC , the punishment for the offence of

kidnapping and abduction is imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten (10) years imprisonment with fine.

CONSPIRACY TO KIDNAP

Section 3 of the Kidnapping Prohibition Law, 2017, provides for

punishment where two or more persons conspire to commit the
offence of kidnapping each shall on conviction be liable to twenty (20)
years imprisonment. Section 4 (2) punishes an overt act in an attempt
to conspire to kidnap with twenty-five (25) years imprisonment.

Note that The court is mandated to prescribe, how the defendant

would be put to death.

ATTEMPT TO KIDNAP

•Section 4 (1) of the Kidnapping Prohibition Law, 2017, punishes

attempt or threat by means of a letter, e-mail, SMS, telephone call or
any other means of communication with the intent to kidnap with
twenty-five (25) years imprisonment.

FAKED KIDNAPPING

Faking kidnapping- it is a serious offence which carries a sentence of

14 years.

Section 5 of the Kidnapping Prohibition Law, 2017, punishes on

conviction with fourteen (14) years imprisonment, a person who
overtly or covertly puts himself forward to be kidnapped or abducted
by another for the purpose of extracting money or any ransom, from
another or for any other reasons.

False Representation to release a Kidnapped Person

Section 6 of the Kidnapping Prohibition Law, 2017, punishes on

conviction with twenty (20) years imprisonment a person who under
false pretence or in any other manner presents himself to either be the
person kidnapped or abducted or have influence, power or ability to
obtain the release of a person kidnapped or abducted for purposes of
obtaining any ransom or reward or extort or extract from another
person anything of value to falsely effect the release of a kidnapped
person

AIDING AND ABETTING OF KIDNAPPING

If a company aids or abets kidnapping activities there would be

winding up of the company (which is similar to death sentence),
contempt of court by a company can render them liable to an order of
winding up by the court.

Section 7 (1) of the Kidnapping Prohibition Law, 2017, punishes

with twenty (20) years imprisonment any person who aids, councils,
abets or procures another person to commit the offence of kidnapping.
Such a person is deemed as a principal offender and it is immaterial
whether or not he is at the crime scene. Section 7 (2) punishes with
twenty-five (25) years imprisonment any person who institutionally
aids, assists or facilitates by either an act or omission the escape of a
kidnapper.

Punishment for Non-Disclosure of Kidnap

Section 8 of the Kidnapping Prohibition Law, 2017, punishes with

five (5) years imprisonment a person who knows of the presence or
existence of kidnappers and the occurrence of kidnapping activities
but fails to report the same to any security agency.

CONCEALMENT

If a person is aware that a particular building is used for kidnapping

and kidnappers reside there, if the person conceals e.g. from lawful
authorities the location or place been used for the act of kidnapping,
the person is liable for 3 years imprisonment.

Section 9 of the Kidnapping Prohibition Law, 2017, punishes with

three (3) years imprisonment a person who knows that a person has
been kidnapped, or abducted and conceals such information or
confines such a person.

The only person who is allowed to conceal is the lawyer to the

kidnappers.

There is a presumption of confidentiality (fiduciary relationship)

between a lawyer and his client because the defendant must have
someone who he can talk to. The role of the lawyer is to make sure
the defendant is prosecuted properly in accordance with the relevant
law, and ensure the necessary elements are proven.
 ALLOWING THE PREMISES TO BE USED

(Offence of harbouring sheltering)

As a landlord it is important to know the job or occupation of your

tenant, the law is so strict that if you allow your premises to be used it
would either be forfeited or demolished.

Section 11 of the Kidnapping Prohibition Law, 2017, punishes with

twenty (20) years imprisonment a person who knowingly or willfully
permits his premises to be used for the purpose of keeping a person
kidnapped.

DUTY TO GIVE INFORMATION AS BYSTANDER.

a person may also be held culpable where kidnapping occurs in his

presence but fails to report to the appropriate quarters.

The general rule is that being at the scene of a crime does not make
you a party to an offence, however in the case of kidnapping the
person who is a bystander or an observer has to report, failure to
attract a sentence of 5 years.

Section 12 of the Kidnapping Prohibition Law, 2017, punishes with

five (5) years imprisonment any person who is aware of the
commission of or intention to commit the offence of kidnapping but
fails to give such information to security agencies, or any relevant
authority of such commission or intention.

POLICE OFFICER THAT DISCLOSES THE INFORMATION.

(Protection of information)
A Police officer or law enforcement agent who discloses the identity of
his informant or source of his information is entitled to 10 years
imprisonment.

Section 14 of the Kidnapping Prohibition Law, 2017, punishes with

ten (10) years imprisonment a Police Officer or Officer of a security
agency who discloses the name and details of any informant or reveal
any information which might lead to the discovery of the informant's
identity.

FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY USED FOR KIDNAPPING.

Property used for kidnapping would be demolished for instance in

Anambra State, ACJA Law of Kwara State 2018 if a property is used
to commit a crime can be forfeited to the state, the court can seal it off
to be owned by the state. in Lagos State the property would be
forfeited to the government.

S.15 the Kidnapping Prohibition Law, 2017, provides that any

property movable or immoveable, used for or in connection with the
commission of an offence of kidnapping may be forfeited to the State.

ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT

Section 16 (1) (2) of the Kidnapping Prohibition Law, 2017,

empowers a police officer or a member of any security agency to
arrest without warrant (through the use such force, including the use
of firearms, as may be reasonably necessary) any person reasonably
suspected of having committed or about to commit the offence of
kidnapping, conspiracy or attempt of same

JURISDICTION

S. 17 of the Kidnapping Prohibition Law, 2017, it is the State High

Court that has jurisdiction to hear and determine kidnapping matters
and the court is given a duration of 60 days to hear and determine
such matters from the date of arraignment.

Section 18 of the Kidnapping Prohibition Law, 2017, the law

enforcement agency through a motion ex-parte can keep a kidnapper
in their custody for 30days in first instance 15 in the second instance
and a final 15 days keeping the person after that period would be a
violation of the right of person liberty guaranteed under S35 CFRN
1999.

A motion ex parte means that the other party would not be put on
notice. It is an offence to receive money from terrorists.

In OKAIKWO V STATE 2017 LPELR 42565 CA, the appellant and

others kidnapped a person, they demanded a ransom of of 20 million
naira, otherwise, they would kill him, they were charged with
conspiracy to commit a felony, kidnapping, demanding property with
menaces and armed robbery. They were found guilty and sentenced
to imprisonment on various counts.

See OKE V SHITTU 2016 15 NWLR pt 1523 pg 126 OGBA V STATE

(2020) LPELR 49667,

The Supreme Court in BELLO OKASHETU V STATE (2016) ALL

FWLR (Pt.861) 1262 S.C, dismissing an appeal laid down the
ingredients of the offence of kidnapping, which must be proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt to ground a conviction. Per
Ogunbiyi JSC stated the ingredients as follow:

a. That the victim was seized and taken away by the accused person.

b. That the victim was taken away without his consent.

c. That the victim was taken away without lawful authority or excuse.
According to the court, the offence of kidnapping is complete
when the victim is carried away against his wish.

TERRORISM

Terrorism is the act of putting fear or terror in the mind of the

citizens. It can be for the purpose of political, social, ethnic or
religious reasons

There's a slight difference terrorism and kidnapping, the purpose of

terrorism is to cause fear in the mind of the victim or general public,
when a group of persons do criminal violence for the purpose of
creating fear in the mind of the victim or general public.

Terrorism is an international crime, any country that apprehends the

criminal can try the person e.g. Henry Oka who orchestrated the 1"
October bombing in Eagles square was arrested, tried and jailed in
South Africa, this is an offence that is beyond territorial boundary e.g.
terrorism, crime against persons, and money laundering do not have
territorial limitation.

The purpose of terrorism is to inflict fear in the mind of the general

public or the victims.

E.g. Al-qaeda, ISWAP, Boko Haram.

The purpose of terrorism is to create fear, that's why in periods of

terrorism there is fear in the environment that's why even in public
places and places of worship people are searched and there is fear in
the environment that is Terrorism. The Attorney general files a motion
ex-parte in court to declare such groups terrorist so the unknown
gunmen are not referred to as terrorists.

Important offences relating to Terrorism

Punishment for terrorism is Mandatory death penalty.

 The office of the National Security Adviser is in charge of
coordinating on matters relating to terrorism it coordinates the
activities of other security agencies guided by Terrorism.Prevention
Act of 2013

Now The latest law is the Terrorism.Prevention Act of 2022.

BERENDE V FRN (2019) LPELR 48376 Court of Appeal

ABDULMUMIN V FRN (2017) LPELR 43762.

The office of the Attorney General of the Federation is in charge of

offences relating to terrorism it must be or through a fiat (permission)
on the authority of the Attorney General, means no one can prosecute
a terrorist act without permission of the Attorney General of the
Federation.

• If a terrorist act is committed against "internationally protected

persons" e.g.Foreign envoys, diplomats or buildings even if death
does not occur it carries a mandatory life imprisonment e.g.
bombing of United NATIONS Building in Abuja.

OFFENCES RELATING TO TERRORISM.

Here are the sections and their respective punishments summarized:

Certainly, here are the sections and their respective punishments

formatted in figures:

S.4. Arranging or Participating in Meetings Related to Terrorism

(Section 12 TPA 2022):

Imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years.

S.5. Soliciting or Rendering Support to Terrorism (Section 13 TPA

2022)

Imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years.

S.6. Harbouring or Hindering Arrest of Terrorists (Section 14TPA
2022):

Imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years.

S.7. Providing Training and Instruction to Terrorist Groups or

Individuals and establishing School (Section 15 TPA 2022):

Imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years.

25 year in 2022 PTA

S.8. Concealing or Failure to Disclose Information on Terrorism

(Section 16 TPA 2022):

Imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years.

20 years ( 2022)

S.9. Providing devices, weapons, Explosives or Lethal Devices

to Terrorists (Section 17 TPA 2022 ):

Imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years.

S.10. Recruitment to Terrorist Groups or Participation in Terrorist

Acts (Section 18 TPA 2022):

Imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years.

S.11. Incitement or Promotion of Terrorism (Section 19 TPA 2022)

Imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years.

12. Facilitating Meetings or Activities for Terrorism by providing

equipments (Section 20 TPA 2022):

Life imprisonment. (2013)

At least 20 years (2022)

S.13. Financing of Terrorism (Section 21 and 22 TPA 2022):

Life imprisonment.

Natural person: life imprisonment(2022)

Company: 20 years (2022) for the principal officer, fine 200million,

and winding up.

S.14. Receiving terrorist money and Dealing in Terrorist Property

(Section 23 TPA 2022 ):

Imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years.

At least 20 years

S.15. Hostage Taking (Section 24 TPA 2022):

Life imprisonment.

Where death involves death sentence (2022)

S.16. Membership in Terrorist Groups or Proscribed

Organizations (Section 25 TPA 2022):

Imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years.

If offence is commited, life imprisonment.

S.17. Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism (Section 26 TPA 2022 ):

Life imprisonment if the act is committed; otherwise, imprisonment

for a term of not less than 20 years.

5 years( 2022)
18. Aiding and Abetting Terrorisms (Section 26 TPA 2022):

Life imprisonment if the act is committed; otherwise, imprisonment

for a term of not less than 20 years.

19. When a terrorist Escapes lawful detention, someone who

facilitates Aids and Abets his Escape (Section 27 TPA 2022):

Life imprisonment (2013)

20 years (2022)

20. Attempt to Commit Terrorism (Section 28TPA 2022 ):

Life imprisonment.

( particular offence)

21. Preparation to commit to commit terrorist acts(section 29 TPA

2022)

20 years

CHILD ABUSE

Who is a child?

A person below the age of 18 can be a child or a young person.

A child is below the age of 14

Young persons are between 14 -18.

A person below the age of 14 S.2 Children & Young Persons law of
Lagos State, Child Rights Act and Law of Various State and decisions
of the court.
STATE V DIKE & ANOR (2021) LPELR 55644 CA, ODOGWU V
ODOGWU (1994) LPELR 2229 SC, OKWUEZE V OKWUEZE

The person once he reaches the age of 14 ceases to be a child. Child

abuse-abuse may come in several ways. Any maltreatment against a
child. Which may be:

1. Physical abuse: violence against the person of that child e.g.

beaten mercilessly would amount to physical abuse.

2. Sexually abuse: both a boy and a girl could be sexually abused.

3. Emotional abuse: occurs where a child's self-esteem is taken

away from him through unnecessary bullying. This is similar to
psychological abuse.

A person who abuses a child sexually is guilty of an offence and

liable to an imprisonment of life imprisonment.

It is immaterial whether the child consents to the abuse or that the

accused person believed that the child was not up to 18 years Of age
S.31 & S.32 of the Child Rights Act 2003.

In Nigeria 34 out of the 36 states have domesticated the Child's Right

Act, leaving Zamfara and Kano state out of it.

It is clear that any form of abuse not stated in the provisions of the
Child Rights Act, will amount to 14 years imprisonment.

PUNISHMENT
Punishment is the sanction meted out for an offence, where any
punishment is prescribed under the law. That prescription is the
maximum and the court has no power to go beyond. See SLAP V AG
FEDERATION, it was held in the case that the court doesn’t have
the power to go beyond the maximum punishment.
 TYPES OF PUNISHMENT
1.Death penalty: this is a capital offence and must be carried out
once the person is found guilty of such offence. The manner of
carrying out the death penalty must be stated which could be by way
of death by handing, lethal injection, firing squad in case of armed
robbery. See S. 401 ACJA.

The manner of prescription of death sentence must be stated by

the court
See KALU V STATE (1968)
OKORO V STATE (1998)
S.403 ACJA 2015
S.402 ACJA
OLOWOFOYEKU V STATE (1984)
GANO V STATE (1968)ANLR 353.

NOTE: where the court doesn’t prescribe the manner of death the
accused person will be apprehensive as to how he will die, but this is
not fatal to the sentence and the court decision cannot be nullified
merely because the judge does not stipulate the manner of death. See
Ejelikwu V state

A pregnant woman who has been found guilty of capital offence can
now be sentenced to death notwithstanding the pregnancy and the
source of the pregnancy. Unlike provision of law. However, the death
execution must wait until the baby is delivered and weaned (2 years
for weaning)

According to section 404 CC, Where a woman found guilty of a

capital offence is pregnant, the sentence of death shall be passed on
her but its execution shall be suspended until the baby is delivered
and weaned.
Also see section S.376CPA.

Before ACJA 2015, once a woman is pregnant regardless of the

source such pregnancy woman will not be sentenced..

Also note that a person below the age of 18, whether a child or a
young person, has protection against the death penalty. In other word,
the death penalty cannot be pronounced on such a person, however,
life imprisonment can be imposed in lieu. Below 18 is not 18 but 17
years, 364 days below.
According to section 405 ACJA, Where a convict who, in the
opinion of the court, had not attained the age of 18 years at the time
the offence was committed is found guilty of a capital offence,
sentence of death shall not be pronounced or recorded but in lieu of it,
the court shall sentence the child to life imprisonment or to such other
term as the court may deem appropriate in consideration of the
principles in section 401 of this Act.

Note that it’s the age of commission and not the age of
conviction. See R v Bangaza, see 319 CC

IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF LAW

● Anybody below the age of 7 years is incapable of committing an
offence. See S.30 CC
● Court cannot sentence the person below the age of 18 to death
but can be sentenced to life imprisonment.
● A male person under the age of twelve years is presumed to be
incapable of having carnal knowledge. See S.30 CC. See
MODUPE JOHNSON V STATE (1988)
A person who is sentenced to death must be issued a certificate of
death penalty. The registrar of the court will issue one certificate and
the judge who convicted will also issue another.
The two issued certificates will be given to the commission of police,
superintendent of prison, Sheriff and filed with the record of
proceeding. See S.406, 407 and 408 ACJA 2015.

SECTION 406 ACJA, A certificate under the hand of the registrar, or

other officer of the court, that a sentence has been passed, and
naming the convict against whom it has been passed, shall be
sufficient authority for the detention of the convict.

SECTION 407 ACJA, A Judge who pronounces a sentence of death

shall issue, under his hand and the seal of the court, a certificate to
the effect that sentence of death has been pronounced upon the
convict named in the certificate, and the certificate shall be sufficient
and full authority in law for the detention of the convict in safe custody
until the sentence of death pronounced upon him can be carried into
effect and for carrying the sentence of death into effect in accordance
with and subject to the provisions of this Part.

OLOYEDE V STATE (2017)

See SECTION 409 for prerogative of mercy.
TANKO V STATE (2009)
KALU V STATE (1977)
You cannot appeal against the prerogative of mercy and no
judicial review can upturn it. It’s absolute.

2.IMPRISONMENT: This is lawful confinement of a person into

correctional service. Especially for those who have been found guilty
of offences other than capital offences. It takes effect immediately
from the date of pronouncements. See S.419 of ACJA, Sentence Of
Imprisonment sentence takes effect from the date on which it was
pronounced.

The court has the power to impose the exact penalty or term but
certainly not on first time offenders. See S.416(2) ACJA.

A first time offender cannot be given a maximum penalty as stipulated

by law. If the maximum term is being applied in custody during trial
shall be taken into account by the court — S.416(2) ACJA.
•Trial court is bound to ask about the antecedent of a defendant
pronouncing the sentences.
•where there is a doubt as to whether a person is of 18 years or not
such doubt must be resolved in favour of the defendant.
•THE APPEAL COURT cannot increase a sentence beyond what the
trial court can pass. the appeal court will put into cognizance the
period of time used in custody on trial.

An imprisonment can be made to run concurrently or

consecutively.
CONCURRENT SENTENCE: Serving multiple sentences at the same
time. E.g If someone gets 5 years for one crime and 3 years for
another,serving both simultaneously means they're out in 5 years. The
court will grant the highest sentence. When the court is silent, then,
consecutive sentences will run.
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE:Consecutive Sentence:
Serving sentences one after the other. The court will add all the
sentences together.
See S.418 ACJA 2015
AFOLABI V STATE (2013)
Lucky v state (2016)
Muhammed v Ag fed (2020)

3.Fine: fine is pecuniary , it is monetary.The peons can be asked to

pay an amount of money if found guilty of an offence. Where the
person fails to pay the fine, imprisonment can be imposed. See
S.422, 426 and 427 ACJA 2015.
OKECHUKWU V STATE (1984)

4. CANNING: It is for a simple offences or misdemeanor. It is not

meant for people above 45 and women. See 386, 77 PC.

5.HADDI LASHING: It is related to canning. It is applicable to Muslims

in the northern part. It is related to offences Adultery, Drunkenness,
Defamation, Injurious falsehood etc. The punishment is not meant to
inflict serious punishment but to disgrace the offender. See 387, 388
and 383 PC.

6. DEPORTATION: This is a legal expulsion of a person out of the

country. This is only for those who are not Nigerians. As a citizen of
Nigeria can’t be deported. See
S.439 ACJA 2015 In this Part, "deport" with its grammatical
variations and cognate expressions, means the legal expulsion or
removal from Nigeria of a person not being a citizen, to his country.
S.440 ACJA, Where a defendant is convicted of an offence
punishable by imprisonment without the option of a fine, the court
may, in addition to, or instead of any other punishment, make a
recommendation to the Minister of Interior that the convict be
deported, where it appears to the court to be in the interest of peace,
order and good governance.
7. PROBATION/ BINDING OVER: It is similar to binding over. Asking
the person to be reporting to the police every month to put him in
check.

Sources:
.Lecturers’ class notes
.Ope SANNI
.ASG
.TOMI
.Djet lawyer
. OBA’s note
. Contributions from my friends( Yusuf, Pelumi, Akin, Ninety nine
and others)