CSS152 Introduction To Nigeria Criminal Law Essien 2008 NOUN
CSS152 Introduction To Nigeria Criminal Law Essien 2008 NOUN
COURSE TITLE:
INTRODUCTION TO NIGERIAN CRIMINAL LAW
CSS 152
INTRODUCTION TO NIGERIAN CRIMINAL LAW
Abuja Office
No. 5 Dar es Salaam Street
Off Aminu Kano Crescent
Wuse II, Abuja
Nigeria
e-mail: [email protected]
URL: www.nou.edu.ng
Published By:
National Open University of Nigeria
Printed 2008
Reprinted 2009
ISBN: 978-058-543-5
Introduction………………………………………………………... 1
Course Aims………………………………………..……….…….. 1
Course Objectives……………………………………….….…….. 1
Course Materials……………………………………….….…….... 2
Study Units………………………………………….…….……… 2
Textbooks and References……..…………………………………. 2
Course Marking Scheme …………………………………………. 3
Course Overview…………………………………………..……… 3
Assessment………………………………………………………… 3
Tutor-Marked Assignment………………………………………… 4
Final Examination and Grading………………………..…………. 4
How to Get the Most from this Course……………………………. 4
Facilitators/Tutors and Tutorials…………………….…..……….. 6
Summary………………………………………….……..………… 6
Course Aim
The aim of the course is to expose you to criminal law in Nigeria so that
you will be able to avoid conducts that border on criminality, so that you
will be able to identify what offences are.
Course Objectives
The general objective will be achieved at the end of the course material.
At the end of the course material you should be able to:
Course Materials
Study Units
There are fifteen study units in this course. They are as follows:
Module 1
Module 2
Each unit contains some exercises on the topic concerned and you will
be required to attempt the exercises. These will enable you evaluate your
progress as well as reinforce what you have learnt so far. The exercises,
together with the tutor marked assignments (TMAs) will help you in
achieving the stated learning objectives of the individual units and the
course.
ii
Course Overview
Your assignment file contains all the details of the assignments you are
required to submit to your tutor for marking. The marks obtained from
these assignments will count towards the final mark you obtain for this
course. More information on the assignments can be found in the file.
Assessment
iii
Your assessment for this course is in two parts: first is the tutor-marked
assignments, and second is the written examination. You will be
required to apply the information and knowledge gained from this
course in completing your assignments. You must submit your
assignments to your tutor in line with submission deadlines as stated in
the assignment file.
Tutor-Marked Assignment
In this course, you will be required to study fifteen (15) units, and
complete the Tutor Marked Assignments provided at the end of each
unit. The assignment attracts 20 marks each. The best four of your
assignments will constitute 30% of your final mark. At the end of the
course you will be required to write a final examination, which counts
for 70% of your final mark.
The assignments for each unit in this course are contained in your
assignment file. You may wish to consult other related materials apart
from your course material to complete your assignments. When you
complete each assignment, send it together with a tutor marked
assignment (TMA) form to your tutor.
Ensure that each assignment reaches your tutor on or before the deadline
stipulated in the assignment file. If for any reason you are unable to
complete your assignment on time contact your tutor before the due date
to discuss the possibility of an extension. Note that extension will not
be granted after the due date for submission unless under exceptional
2circumstances.
iv
d. Turn to Unit 1 and read the introduction and the objectives for the
unit.
e. Assemble the study materials you will need, the reference books
in the unit you are studying at any point in time.
f. Work through the unit. As you work through the unit, you will
know what sources to consult for further information.
h. Before the relevant due dates (about 4 weeks before due dates),
access the assignment file on the web Gole and download your
next required assignment. Keep in mind that you will learn a lot
by doing the assignment carefully. They have been designed to
help you meet the objectives of the course and therefore, will
help you pass the examination. Submit all assignment not later
than the due dates.
i. When you are confident that you have achieved a unit’s objective
you can start on the next unit. Proceed unit by unit through the
course and try to pace your study so that you keep yourself on
schedule.
k. After completing the last unit, review the course and prepare
yourself for the final examination.
Your tutor will mark and comment on your assignments; do not hesitate
to contact him on telephone, e-mail or discussion board in case of the
following:
You learn a lot from participating in discussions and that is the reason
why the issue of tutorials must be taken seriously.
Summary
Check that you have achieved the unit objectives (listed at the beginning
of each unit) and the course objectives (listed in the Course Guide).
vi
MAIN
COURSE
Course Code CSS 152
Course Title Introduction to Nigeria Criminal Law
vii
Abuja Office
No. 5 Dar es Salaam Street
Off Aminu Kano Crescent
Wuse II, Abuja
Nigeria
e-mail: [email protected]
URL: www.nou.edu.ng
Published By:
National Open University of Nigeria
Printed 2008
Reprinted 2009
ISBN: 978-058-543-5
viii
CONTENTS PAGE
Module 1 ………………………………………………………… 1
Module 2 ……………………………………………….............. 58
ix
This unit will introduce the students to the History and sources of
Criminal Law in Nigeria. It would enable the students to know the
purpose of Criminal Law as well as the nature of crime. The unit is
ramified as follows:
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 History of Criminal Law in Nigeria
3.2 Purpose of Criminal Law
3.3 The Nature of Crime
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Criminal Law which is the law of crime in Nigeria has a good history
and was developed from sources, the subject matters or which will be
examined in greater details in this unit.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
The above statutes which we have mentioned may be grouped into three
distinct categories. The first are the many statutes made by the Federal,
States and Local Government Councils in Nigeria which take care of
various technical or specific offences whose purpose is to regulate the
conduct of the people through sanctions or punishments contained in
such offences.
The second category of criminal statutes are the Criminal Code Act, cap
77 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and the Penal Code Law of 1959
which came into effect in 1960. While the Criminal Code applies in the
Southern States of Nigeria, the Penal Code applies in the Northern
States of Nigeria. These two codes criminalize many offences which are
intended to regulate the conduct of the people.
The Lagos colony had the modern English common is law which was
introduced by ordinance No. 3 of 1863. The various political evolutions
which went on in the various protectorates and colonies also led to the
development of criminal law in Nigeria.
The British Home Government approved the request and same was
incorporated in section 22 (10) of the repealed 1963 Republican
Constitution. That section of the constitution read “No person shall be
convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the
penalty therefore is prescribed in a written law”.
The foregoing was the basis for the court’s decision in the case of Aoko
V.Fagbemi (1961) I All M 400. In that case, the court held that a
woman cannot now be convicted for adultery (a morally reprehensible
conduct) which has not been elevated to the level of a crime in the
Criminal Code.
the North and the Criminal Procedure Act, cap 80, Laws of Federation
of Nigeria 1990.
In order to understand the nature of crime, one has to look at the legal
consequences which may follow it. For example, if the wrongful act or
omission is capable of being followed by what is called criminal
proceedings, that means it is regarded as a crime other wise, called an
offence. If it is capable of being followed by la civil proceedings that
means it is regarded as a civil wrong.
Crime or criminal wrong on the one hand and civil wrong on the other
hand could be distinguished from each other. The true distinction
between a crime and a civil wrong lies not in the nature of the wrongful
act but in the nature of the proceedings and in the legal consequences
that may follow.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, you have been exposed to the history and sources of
Criminal Laws in Nigeria. It has also sufficiently demonstrated that
nobody can be punished under the laws in Nigeria except the law is
written and punishment defined.
5.0 SUMMARY
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Understanding Definitions of Crime
3.2 Juristic Approach to the Definition of Crime
3.3 Judicial Approach to the Definition of Crime
3.4 Statutory Approach to the Definition of Crime
3.5 Crime Distinguished from Sin
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OBJECTIVES
The focus of this unit is to define crime. At the end of this unit, you
should be able to:
There have been problems in the definition of crime and the definition
of crime and the consistent application of the components of such
definition in tailoring the specific offences or crime i.e. the application
of the definitions in the formulation of criminalization policy.
For the purpose of this lecture, the words “crime” and “offence” have
the same meaning assigned to them because they mean one and the same
thing.
The Criminal Code Act, cap. 77 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990
particularly in section 2 thereof has defined crime thus: “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 and offence”.
10
Section 36 (8) of the 1999 constitution states that no person shall be held
to be guilty of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission that
did not, at the time it took place, constitutes such as offence, and no
penalty shall be imposed for any criminal offence heavier than the
penalty in force at the time the offence was committed.
For more in this area of the law, see the cases of Aoko v. Fagbemi
(1961) 1 All NLR 400 and Udokwu v. Onugha (1963) 7 ENLR P. 1
We have seen crime to be an act of omission which the law has labelled
as such. But immorality or sin is a different thing. It is an act which
society or community abhors. It is an act of moral depravity. Thus it
can be said that an act may be immoral but not a crime.
Though many illegal or criminal acts are immoral, not all immoral acts
are criminal. For instance, in the Criminal Code which applies in the
Southern States of Nigeria, adultery is not a crime though it is an act of
immorality.
Strictly speaking what the immortal words of Lord Atkin means is that
crime and sin or immorality do not have the same scope and extent.
11
This means that as they are co-extensive, they are far from having the
same scope extent and direction.
It is however, important to note that when the criminal law reflects the
society’s sense of morality, the task of law enforcement is likely to be
easier. This is because members of that society would feel a sense of
obligation to obey the law.
4.0 CONSLUSION
This unit is very important in that attempts were made at defining crime.
The different schools of thought tried to define crime from their own
institutional and perspective view points. Having read through this unit
you should be able to define crime and should be, able to discuss the
relationship between your definition and what operates in Nigeria. As
you go further in your studies these concept shall become clearer to you.
5.0 SUMMARY
The study of this unit highlights the following facts:
The word crime is not different from the word offence. That is if
a particular law does not make a particular act or omission an
offence, such act or omission cannot be regarded as an offence.
While the juristic approach defines crime as an offence against
the State, the judicial approach defines crime as an act in which
an indictment or an information will lie.
The Statutory approach emphasizes the criminalization of an act
or omission for such to be regarded as an offence.
Crime and immorality belongs not to the same but to different
regimes of behaviour.
6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT
12
This unit will introduce you to the elements of an offence. The elements
of an offence are contained in that particular offence depending on how
such offence is worded. In other words, it is through a thorough
comprehension of the definition of an offence that one will discover the
elements of that offence. This unit is fashioned as follows:
CONTENTS
13
Introduction
Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 The Physical Element
3.2 The Mental Element
3.3 The Concurrence of the Physical Element and the Mental
Element
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The physical element is the act or omission done or omitted while the
mental element is the intent to commit or omit the crime.
The English common law regarded the physical element to mean the
actus reus which is a Latin expression meaning guilty act and the mental
element otherwise known as the mens rea to mean the guilty mind.
While the physical element is manifested in the act complained of, the
mental element requires the proof of knowledge and foresight on the
part of the accused.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
14
The physical element also known as the guilty act can also manifest by
way of possession. It is immaterial that the accused has not begun to put
that thing in his possession to any unlawful use. Section 148 (3) of the
Criminal Code provides for unlawful possession of counterfeit coin or of
a means of making them. Mere possession of the counterfeit coin is
enough to constitute the physical element of that offence. It does not
matter whether you have put the money to use by way of using it to buy.
For more on this, see sections 150, 154 (2), 155 (1), S. 209 and 213 etc
of the Criminal Code Act.
Possession here may not be physical only; it can also be through the
agency of another person in which case it will be constructive
possession.
15
an association. But where you continue membership after the ban now
becomes the physical element of that offence.
The mental element or the guilty act can also manifest by way of
consequence. In some offences such as murder and manslaughter, it is
the consequence (e.g. death) which results from the conduct of the
accused person that constitutes the actus reus of such offences.
The mental element or the mens rea is a reference to the mental element
which the prosecution must provide in any particular offence in order to
secure a conviction.
It is suitable to state that five basic concepts which may underline the
particular conduct are worthy of mention.
16
These are
i. Intention
ii. Recklessness
iii. Negligence
iv. Accident and
v. Unconsciousness
i. Intention
Having seen what intention is all about, it is sound to state that motive is
reason for the accused person’s conduct which has induced him to act
unlawfully but which does not form part of the metal element of an
offence.
17
Motive may therefore take the form of love, fear, jealousy, anger,
ambition, etc. Thus, if I kill my wealthy uncle in order to inherit his
assets, the intention is manifested in the killing while the motive is the
inheritance of uncle’s assets.
But there are certain provisions of the Code in which motive is made the
basis of criminal responsibility. See sections 10, 26, 316 (3) and 377 etc
of the Criminal Code.
ii. Recklessness
iii. Negligence
Under the English law, the degree of negligence which attracts liability
in a criminal offence is said to be higher than negligence that will attract
liability in a civil matter. To this end, the case of Dabholkar v. R.
(1948) AL 221 is illustrative.
18
Thus, a person who drives fast and zigzags along the road in a built up
area at night when pedestrians and other vehicles are about shows
complete and criminal disregard for the life and safety of others and is
guilty of gross negligence. (See R. v Adenuga) and Akerele v. R (1942).
See also Opara v. The State (1998). In this case, the accused drove his
lorry in a high way at 5.30 a.m. zigzag from right to left, in a manner
dangerous to the public, collided with an on-coming pick up from the
opposite direction. The pick up burst into flames killing two people on
the spot. The accused was charged with manslaughter, causing death by
dangerous driving. In his defence, the accused said he had crossed the
road, and parked his lorry when the pick up van ran into his lorry and hit
the vehicle.
The trial court rejected his defence and convicted him on all the three
counts. Allowing his appeal, the Court of Appeal said that the degree of
negligence required to support a charge of manslaughter must amount to
gross or criminal negligence, utter recklessness in disregard for the lives
and safety of the road users.
iv. Knowledge
There are certain things in which the law requires that the accused
person must have knowledge of a particular existing circumstance. In
order to appreciate the enormity of the above mental condition, see the
19
v. Voluntary Conduct
In Nigeria, the law is well stated in section 24 of the criminal code and it
provides that, except in negligent acts or omission, a person is not
criminally responsible for an act or omission which occurs
independently of the exercise of his will or for an act or for an event
which occurs by accident.
It is not in all offences that the prosecution is required to prove both the
physical and the mental elements. There are some offences in which the
law requires the prosecution prove the physical element only. Where
this happens it is said that those offences are strict liability offences.
See the case of R. v. Efana (1972) 8 NLR 81 and search the Criminal
Code of bring out strict liability offences.
20
The physical element must co-exist with the mental element and they
must simultaneously or contemporaneously complement each other as a
matter of law. This is an English Law concept and its import is yet to be
firmly considered in Nigeria Law according to the learned authors of
Okonkwo and Naish in their book Criminal Law in Nigeria.
It is another way of saying that both the actus reus and the mens rea of
an offence correspond.
Exceptions
The first of such exceptions was developed by Lord Denning in the case
of Attorney General for Northern Ireland v. Gallagher (1963) AL 349.
In that case, the learned law Lord opined “Where a person whilst sane
and sober forms an intention to kill and then prepares for it, knowing it
to be a wrong thing to do, he cannot thereafter rely on self induced
drunkenness as a defence to a charge of murder”.
In the above Case, the House of Lords allowed the appeal on the basis
that if before the killing, the accused had discarded his intention to kill
or reserved it and got drunk, it would have been a different matter, but
when he forms the intention to kill and without any interruption
proceeds to get drunk and carries out his intention, then his drunkenness
is no defence, moreso it is dressed up as a defence on insanity. There
was no evidence in the present case of any interruption. Lord Denning
said that the wickedness of the accused person’s mind before he got
drunk is enough to condemn him coupled with the act which he intended
to do which he actually did.
The third exception is that when the actus reus is part of a larger
transaction, it is said to be sufficient if the accused possessed the intent
21
during the transaction, though not at the moment the actus reus was
accomplished.
The Indian case of Khandu (1890) ILR Bombay 196 and the Rhodesian
case of Shorty (1950) SR 280 were ordinarily decided on the basis of the
principle of the concurrence of the physical and mental elements and the
accused persons were not found guilty as charged. But the case of the
Thabo Meli v. R. i1954) 1 WLR took a different view.
The Privy Council said that the actus reus which caused the death of the
deceased by exposure is part of a larger transaction of an earlier
intention to kill him with a strike.
4.0 CONCLUSION
5.0 SUMMARY
22
“A” intending to kill “B” strikes him with a sharp knife and thinking
that “B” is dead whereas he has not died, throws his body into Qua Iboe
River and “B” is now dead due to exposure, what is the position of the
law relating to the principle of concurrence.
CONTENTS
Introduction
23
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 The Actual Classification of Offences
3.2 The Principle of no Liability without Fault
3.3 The Sources of the Principle
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
It is a known phenomenon in criminal law that offences are classified
into different categories. The classifications are not contained in the
sections creating the offence; they are contained in the punishments
attached to the offences. A person should be punished for the offence
which he or she committed which is the basis of criminal responsibility.
Such a person cannot properly in law be punished for another person’s
offence except where there is vicarious liability permitted by law.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
24
In the northern part of Nigeria where the Penal Code applies, no such
classifications have been made. But these classifications as above,
covers all manner of offences in Southern part irrespective of whether
such offences are contained in the Criminal Code or not.
25
The learned authors, Okonkwo and Naish, submit that all legal systems
have to some degree or other incorporated the simple moral idea that no
one should be convicted of a crime unless he willed the fault and same
attributed to him.
In order to prove that the accused is liable, it is left for the prosecution to
prove the existence or otherwise of mens rea and it is analytical to state
that the mens rea doctrine is used to describe the statutory principle
under the common law situation, which runs through all offences.
There are two sources to which the principle of no liability without fault
could be traced. The first is predicated on English law as a source and
the second is anchored on Nigerian law as a source.
Okonkwo and Naish have said that in English law, the scope of the
doctrine of mens rea (guilty mind) depends on whether a particular
crime is a common law offence or a statutory offence. It is worth
recapitulating that common law offences derive from the customs and
tradition of the English people while statutory offences are those
contained in enacted statutes.
26
The mens rea doctrine was decided upon in the case of Lim Chik Aik v.
R (1963) AC 160. In that case, the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council accepted the immortal words of Wright J in the often cited case
of Sherras v. de Rutzen (1895) 1QB 918 to the effect that “there is a
presumption that mens rea or evil intention or knowledge of the
wrongfulness of the act is an essential ingredient in every offence.
But there are certain offences in which mens rea doctrine is displaced in
which case it will be said that liability is strict. It is strict because in
such offences, the law does not require the proof of mental element or
the guilty mind. The proof of actus reus or the guilty act is enough for
the conviction of the accused person.
Under this category, the accused would have acted or omitted to act
under a condition which is involuntary…. – i.e. independently of his/her
will. This defence is separate from the defence of accident and should be
treated as such. The defence comes under the generic term ‘auto
27
You should try to distinguish between the two defences of auto malison
and accident. Suppose you are working with a matchet in a field in the
company of other workers. You are suddenly stung by a bee in the
back. In a quick reaction, you tried to use the flat side of the matchet to
hit that part of the body to get rid of the bee. The matchet lands on the
head of a co-worker either by slipping of your hand or because of the
swift manner you swung around.
Although you had the will to swing around to make use of the matchet,
the result of what you did was an event which occurred suddenly and
unexpectedly. It is an accident.
Again suppose you suddenly have a spasm which swung you round
unconsciously resulting in the matchet landing on the head of the co-
worker. This is not an accident. It is auto malison. The act of swinging
round occurred independently of the exercise of your will. It was an
unwilled act negating any mental sate of voluntariness.
The case of Opara v. State (1998) 2 NWLR (pt 536) 108 reinforced the
new position on the degree of Negligence required to support the case.
28
Opera v. State (Supra) The utter recklessness in disregard for lives and
safety of other road users was said to be negligent.
Defence of accident under section 24 CC. applies even though the act
done is unlawful: (R v. Martyr (1962), Festus Amayo v. The State (2001)
18 NWLR p. 745 251 and Agwu v. The State (1998) 4 NWLR (pt. 544)
90.
It seems plain that the Common Law principle of mens rea (i.e. no
liability without fault) is the same with section 24 of the Criminal Code.
Okonkwo and Naish have argued and rightly too that the words “mens
rea” should not be used in our Criminal law because the criminal code
which we use, has already provided in S. 24 what the mens rea doctrine
does in common law in relation to the principle of no liability without
fault. They argue that the need to import it into our criminal law
therefore has been defeated by S. 24 of the Criminal Code and that
section 24 of the criminal code is eider in scope and applicability.
Where the court held that the situation reflected in S. 24 of the Criminal
Code is that no criminal responsibility is due to a person for an event
which occurs by accident. This involves a voluntary act, but where the
voluntary act results in an event which was neither intended nor
29
See the case of Agwu v. State (1998). Here, the appellant and his
deceased brother had a melee, struggled over a rod, resulting in some
vandalism and the deceased sustained some injuries, bled from upper
shoulder and subsequently died. Neither party showed satisfactorily
how the deceased got the fatal injury. The trial court convicted the
appellant but the Court of Appeal in a unanimous judgement allowed the
appeal.
You should remember that the onus is on the prosecution to disprove the
defence of accident. If the prosecution therefore failed as in the instant
case, to show satisfactorily how the deceased got the fatal injury in the
scuffle and the true cause of the injury or hurt was unknown, then the
hurt or injury would qualify as and be called an accident. The Court of
Appeal held as the defence of accident, like all other defences,
presupposes that the accused physically committed the offence but
should be acquitted because it was an accidental act.
The issue canvassed before the Supreme Court was whether the
appellant was exculpated from criminal responsibility for the death of
the deceased by virtue of the provisions of section 24 cc.
30
4.0 CONCLUSION
5.0 SUMMARY
31
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
32
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In the olden days, any person who killed another was made to pay the
supreme price, i.e. death on the culprit. As the society develops, killing
one another in a manner not justified by law was criminalized and it
became an offence. The law, since then, has introduced or imposed
sanction against the accused and has also spelt out the ingredients of the
offence.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
33
3. It is often said that because of the damnable nature of the acts, the
law in Nigeria, through the Criminal Code Act chapter 77 laws of
the Federation of 1990 particularly in section 319 thereof, has
prescribed death as a penalty for the act of homicide. The reason
for making homicide an offence punishable by death in our law is
predicated on the principle of fair deserts as a theory of
punishment.
The above quoted section of the criminal code is explained to mean that
a child becomes a human being when it comes out completely out of the
mother’s womb alive. Thus, the law is that the child must have been
completely removed from its mother’s body as was decided in the case
of R. v. Poulton (1. 32) 5C & x.329 and it is enough that life should exist
in a child at the time he was born.
34
The question which arises for consideration here is: when will death
occur so as to amount to homicide according to law. In order to answer
the question, it is necessary to explore the provision of section 314 of
the criminal code which says that “a person is not deemed to have killed
another if death of that other person does not take place within a year
and a day of the cause of death”. That section goes on to state that such
period is calculated to include the day on which the last unlawful act
contributing to or resulting in the cause of death was done. For more
elaborate reading, see S. 314 generally and case of R. v. Dead son 1908
DB 454.
Section 308 of the criminal code reveals that death could be caused
directly by any means whatsoever. One can thus see that from the
wording of section 308 of Criminal Code, it seems plain to say that
section 24 of the Criminal Code is moribund if death occurs directly by
any means in accordance with the said Section 308 of the Criminal
Code. Still within the meaning of the general aspect of homicide,
section 310 says that a person who by threat or intimidation or by deceit
causes another person to do act or make omission which results in the
death of that other person, he is deemed to have killed him.
From the way section 310 of the Criminal Code is worded, two
situations which may arise for consideration are:
35
The section by implication means that some homicides are lawful while
others are unlawful. It is lawful when authorized by law in a situation
where a hangman hangs a condemned criminal, where a soldier in action
kills, where a soldier shoots and kills a condemned armed robber tied to
a stake or a police officer kills a fleeing robber suspect or where a peace
officer kills a person who has committed a felony as contemplated by s.
271 of the Criminal code.
S. 316 of the Criminal Code deals with six circumstances that can
constitute the offence of a murder. Section 316 (1) says that it is murder
if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of
some other person. And by S. 316 (2), if the offender intends to do to
the person killed or to some other person some grievous harm.
From S. 316 of the Criminal Code, it is clear that for the offence of
murder to occur, there must be killing or death must occur and the
offender must intend to do the person killed, or some other person,
grievous bodily harm, often shortened as GBH. Section 1 of the
Criminal Code defines grievous (bodily) harm as “any harm which
amount to a maim or dangerous harm as defined in this section or which
seriously or permanently injures health, or which is likely so to injure
health, or which extends to permanent disfigurement or to any
permanent or serious injury to any external or internal organ, member or
sense.
In R. v. Ntah, (1961) 1 All NLR 590, it was made clear that if the
intention of the accused is not to cause grievous harm but so results to it.
36
In order to answer the question whether “the act” and “the unlawful
purpose” as contained above are the same thing, see the case of R. v.
Nichols (1958) Qd EN 46, in which the Circuit Court held that since the
act which caused death, i.e. setting fire to the hotel, was also the
unlawful purpose, section 302 (2) of Queensland Criminal Code, which
is similar to S. 316 of our Criminal Code, was inapplicable.
Mention six instances in which murder can manifest within the meaning
of S. 316 (1) of the Criminal Code.
CONCLUSION
In this unit we showed that the Law must continually strike a balance
between the conflicting interests of individuals or between the
conflicting interests of society and the individuals. We demonstrated
that when certain conduct is branded unlawful by the Law, this means
that according to the legal conviction of society certain interests or
values protected by the Law (such as life, property and dignity) are
regarded as more important than others. In order to determine whether
conduct is unlawful one must therefore enquire whether the conduct
concerned conflicts with the legal conviction of the society.
5.0 SUMMARY
37
6.0 TUTOR-MARKEDASSIGNMENT
If a man kills his brother during a brawl, can his wife who was away in
the market at that time be charged alongside her husband with the
offence of murder?
Criminal Code Act, Cap 77, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.
This unit will introduce you to the parties to an offence. You will learn
about principal offenders as well as accessory after the fact to the
offence already committed. The schematic approach of the unit is set
thus:
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
38
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Liability Affecting a Principal Offender
3.2 Classes of Principal Offenders
3.3 Liability as an Accessory after the Fact
3.4 Limit of Liability as an Accessory
3.5 The Mental Element of Principal Offender
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OBJECTIVES
39
a. every person who actually does the act or makes the omission
which constitute an offence;
b. every person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of
enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence;
c. every person who aids another person in committing the offence;
d. any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit
the offence.
Section 7 (a) of the Code provides for every person who actually does
the act or makes the omission which constitutes the offence. This
contemplates the person who for example slaps another thereby
committing a criminal assault. It also has to do with the man who set
fire to a house thereby committing the offence of arson.
The man, who makes the omission, is for example, the family head who
fails to provide the necessaries of life of a child under the age of
fourteen contrary to section 301 of the Criminal Code.
Sometimes it could be that the person who does the act is acting
innocently in furtherance of any other person’s criminal intention, in
such a situation, the man (person who does the act) is not criminally
responsible for the act complained of. Instead, the man who used him
(the principal) will be liable for the act done in accordance with section
7(d) of the criminal code.
Section 7(c) of the Criminal Code talks about every person who aids
another person in committing the offence. When it comes to assistance,
the West African Court of Appeal held thus “We are of the opinion that
to bring a person within this section (that is to say S. 7(c) of the
40
Criminal Code), there must be clear evidence that the appellant did
something to facilitate the commission of the offence – see the case of
Enweonye v. R. (1955) WACA 1.
The law is that, if the aid or the assistance is given while the
commission of the offence lasts, the aider will equally be criminally
liable. See the case of R. v. Johnson (1973) Wd R 303 as well as the
case of R. v. Mayberry (1 1; 73) Qd R 211.
It is settled law that mere presence at the scene of the crime without
more does not make the man a party to an offence. In the cases of
Azumah v. R (10, 50) 13 WACA 87, the court said “mere presence is not
enough, a person must be purposely facilitating or aiding the
commission of a crime by his presence before he can be regarded as an
accomplice”.
The law as expounded above illustrates the fact that the aider can only
be convicted if the named principal is also convicted but if the principal
is not named, the aider cannot be convicted on the basis that the
principal is not known and is said to be at large.
It is worthy to mention that because of immaturity contained in S. 30 of
the Criminal Code, if a person is not criminally responsible and aided to
commit an offence, it is good law to say that, no offence has been
committed and S. 7 of the Criminal Code cannot apply:
The Criminal Code provides that when two or more persons form a
common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with
one another and in prosecution of such purpose an offence is committed
41
Section 7(d) of the Criminal Code provides for any person who counsels
or procures any other person to commit the offence.
Here, apart from proof of intention on the part of the procurer and
counsellor, words alone will be adequate for criminal liability. The
words of couselling or procuring must involve some positive act of
encouragement to those who actually committed the offence.
The law is that, tacit acquiescence or ordinary words amounting to a
mere permission, are not enough to amount to counseling. See
Idika v. R (1959) 4 FSC 106.
42
The question to be asked and answered here is what happens where the
police set a trap for animals.
The court however accepts the strategy, whereby the police set a trap for
criminals as a way of arresting them and facilitating the administration
of criminal law. Under the circumstance, the initiative to commit the
crime must come from the criminal and the police following that
initiative, sets up the trap in order to ensnare the criminal and then tame
the tide of crime to the society.
Section 10 of the Criminal code provides for the above and states that
any person who receives or assists another, who is to, his knowledge
guilty of an offence, in order to enable him to escape punishment is said
to become an accessory after the fact to that offence.
The acts reus for the offence of an accessory is the receipt or the
assistance given to the suspect after he has allegedly committed an
offence and the offender now runs away for protection. A monetary
reception of the suspect by the accessory will be enough in the eyes of
the law provided by accessory knows that; the person received or
assisted committed the offence.
43
Why has the law treated every other type of marriage, except Christian
marriage, with total disfavour within the, meaning of section 10 of the
Criminal Code.
For further reading see section 25 of the Criminal Code and the
Queensland case of R. v. Solomon (1959) Qd. R 123.
4.0 CONCLUSION
5.0 SUMMARY
44
UNIT 7 STEALING
This unit will introduce you to stealing as a topic in criminal law. You
will learn what stealing is, how it is different from other subjects in
criminal law.
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
45
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Definition
3.2 Taking
3.3 Converting
3.4 Specific Intents in Stealing
3.5 Things Capable of being Stolen
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OBJECTIVE
3.1 Definition
3.2 Taking
For there to be taking in the eyes of the law, the thing must be moved or
caused to be moved. See section 383 (6) of the Criminal Code. There
are two known types of taking: The first one is actual taking, which
46
3.3 Converting
Conversion is not defined in the Criminal Code. According to the
renowned authors, Okonkwo and Naish, in their book, Criminal Law in
Nigeria, the definition of conversion is to be and should be taken from
the area of torts. Thus, in the all-important case of Lancashire Railway
Company v. Macnicol (1919) 88LJKB 601 and 605, conversion was
looked at as a dealing with goods in a manner inconsistent with the
rights of the true owner, provided that it is also established that it is also
an intention on the part of the defendant, in so doing to deny the owner’s
right or to assert a right which is inconsistent with the owner’s right.
See also Street on Torts at page 44, as well as the view, as well as the
view of the court in the case of Mills v. Broker (1919) 1 KB 555. If we
therefore relate the above definition to the subject at hand, it is fitting to
say that for conversion to amount to stealing, it must be done with one
of the fraudulent intents provided in section 383 (2) of the Criminal
Code.
47
2. Next is section 383 (2) (b) of the Criminal Code, which provides
for an intent permanently to deprive any person who has any
special property in the thing of such property. According to the
code, the phrase “special property” as contained herein includes
any charge or lien upon the thing in question, and any right
arising from or dependent upon holding possession of the thing in
question whether by the person entitled to such right or by some
other person for his benefit. This limb of section 384 (2)(b) is
designed to protect the right of a person who is not the owner of
the property but has some special interest in the thing he must
have power to exercise physical control over that thing.
Therefore, if you are a finder of a lost property or goods or a
pledge of goods, the law recognizes you as having special
property in the article.
3. The third is contained in section 383 (2) (c) of the Criminal Code
and it deals with an intent to use the things as a pledge or
security. The general rule is that a person who is not the owner
of a property and who pledges that property to another as a
security has committed the offence of stealing. To every general
rule, the law recognizes exception(s). The exception here is in
the case of extreme necessity and on condition that he would
retrieve such goods almost immediately, but unfortunately, is
unable to do so. Here, the law will not regard that, as the offence
of stealing because intention which is an essential ingredient is
considered lacking.
4. Section 383 (2) (d) deals with intent to part with it on a condition
as to its return which the person taking or converting it may be
unable to return.
Here, the accused takes one’s property for a transaction but loses
such property in the cause of such transaction and therefore is
unable to such property to the owner.
48
6. The last intent is set out in section 383 (2) (f) of the Criminal
Code and it states thus: in the case of money, an intent to use it at
the will of the person who takes or converts it, although he may
intend afterwards to repay the amount to the owner. The law
contained in section 383 (2) (f) of the criminal code was the basis
of court’s decision in the case of R. v. Orizu (1954) 14 WACA.
In that case, the court held that accused liable for offence of
stealing and convicted him accordingly.
Mention six intents criminalized in the code which would make taking
or conversion fraudulent and therefore criminal in the eye of the law.
In law, there are certain things which are not capable of being stolen.
Such things are land and property not owned by anybody. The common
law position is that, a corpse is not capable of being stolen. But the law
has been developed to the effect that if a corpse possesses peculiar
attributes as to justify its preservation on scientific or other grounds and
some work of skill have been performed on such corpse, and it is an
unlawful possession of a person or authority, it may amount to stealing
if such a corpse is disposed of in a manner constituting the offence of
stealing.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In this unit, we demonstrated that for a property to be capable of being
stolen, it must be:
49
In order for the act to be unlawful, the act of stealing must take place
without the permission of the person who has a right to possess it.
In the unit, we demonstrated that to have the intention required for theft
it must relate to the act, the nature of property, and to the unlawfulness.
Further more, the intention must be to permanently deprive the person
entitled to the possession of the property.
5.0 SUMMARY
Stealing is an offence which when committed, attracts punishment,
as contained in the code.
It is not every act of the accused that constitutes the offence of
stealing.
For an act to be regarded as stealing, it must be accompanied by any
of the specific intents contemplated in section 383 (2) (a)-(f) of the
code.
It is not everything that is capable of being stolen; for example, land
and ownerless properties cannot be stolen.
The things stolen must be moved to the slightest degree with the
intent of permanently depriving the owner of the use of such things
or with any of the specified intents.
50
In this unit, you will know that obtaining by false pretences is a felony
whose main ingredient is intent to defraud and is geared towards
anything capable of being stolen. This unit is patterned as follows:
CONTENTS
51
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Definition
3.2 Obtaining
3.3 The Pretence
3.4 Past and Present Matter
3.5 Falsity of the Pretence
3.6 Intent to Defraud
3.7 Effect of Pretence
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OBJECTIVES
What this unit seeks to achieve is for you to appreciate the ingredients of
the offence of false pretence. This will enable you to have a firm
grounding on the topic and also widen your intellectual frontiers within
the greater regime of criminal law. The high incidence of the offence
and the negative image it has given Nigeria in the international scene
makes it imperative for you to be systematically instructed on it.
3.1 Definition
52
It does not matter that the thing is obtained or its delivery induced
through the medium of a contract induced by false pretence. The
offender cannot be arrested without warrant, unless found in the very act
of committing the offence.
3.2 Obtaining
For “obtaining” to take place, one must induce the owner of the property
to transfer his/her whole interest in the property. The usual distinction
which must be drawn is between “possession” and “ownership”. Thus if
by an act of any accused person possession only is transferred, then the
proper offence is stealing. If, however, both possession and ownership
are transferred, then the proper offence is obtaining by false pretence –
see Akosa v. Commissioner of Police (1950) 13 WACA 43.
Okonkwo and Naish submit that on the principle of Oshin (Supra), the
case of State v. Osuafor (1972) 2 FCSLR 412, in which accused was
convicted of obtaining by false pretence, was wrongly decided. They
submit that the proper offence in Osuafor’s case was stealing because
only possession was obtained by the accused.
The learned authors also submit that the case of Abasi v. COP (1965)
NWLR 461 was wrongly decided because the offence committed was
obtaining by false pretence and not stealing as was held by the court
because both possession and ownership were involved.
Illustration
If A by false pretence obtains the hire of B’s bicycle for a day and
returns but does not pay the hire charge, this is not obtaining of the
bicycle by false pretence because what A obtains was only a ride on the
bicycle (possession) and not B’s entire interest (ownership) of it.
53
The owner of land has special property (interest) in things found on his
land and same is applicable to a finder of lost articles. It may be false
pretence to induce them to give out their entire interest in such goods or
articles.
If a customer pays a forged cheque into a bank account and the bank
makes an entry crediting him with the amount on the cheque, he is not
guilty of obtaining money from the bank by false pretence and this
offence can only crystallize when the bank actually hands over or pays
the money to the customer, irrespective of how much it credited in
favour of the customer in his account because property in the money still
resides with the bank.
54
that a pretence can be inferred from the conduct of the accused and
circumstance of the case.
But if the drawer has no account at all at the bank, then there is a false
representation on an existing fact. If the false representation consists
partly of a statement of a past or present matter and partly of a statement
relating to the future, an offence is committed by false pretence,
provided the former statement is a material contributory factor inducing
the representee to part with his property.
The law is that the pretence must not only be false but it must be false to
the knowledge of the maker, or at least, he must not believe it to be true.
If the accused honestly believes in the truth of the statement which
unfortunately turns out not to be so, this is no false pretence but merely
an expression of opinion. It is only a statement of fact that cannot,
which in law constitute a false pretence.
Illustration
55
If a butcher represents the meat he sells as the best in the market and it
turns out to be so, this is no false pretence but merely an expression of
opinion. But if a trader knowingly makes a false statement of fact
concerning his product, that is false pretence in the eyes of the law. The
prosecution has a heavy burden of proving the falsity of the pretence and
if the pretence is shown to be false, it is no defence that the person
defrauded, parted with his property in order that it might be put to an
unlawful purpose.
The law is that the pretence must have induced the owner to part with
his goods. It must be shown clearly that the alleged false representation
weighed on the mind of the representee and therefore made him to part
with the goods. If the representations consist of variety of statements
wherein one of such statements is false, by the authority of
R. v. Jenisson (1862) L & C 157, the representee will be guilty if that
false statement is an effective cause of the transfer of ownership.
4.0 CONCLUSION
56
5.0 SUMMARY
MODULE 2
57
This unit is premised on the fact that a person who receives any stolen
goods has committed an offence known as receiving stolen goods. The
commission of this offence pre-supposes the fact that there is already in
existence stolen goods before such goods are received which results in
the offence under discussion. This unit is arranged as follows:
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Elements of the Offence
3.2 Receiving Dishonestly
3.3 Property Received
3.4 Element of Guilty Knowledge
3.5 Stolen Property Converted into other Property
3.6 Being in Possession of Goods Reasonably Suspected to
have been Stolen.
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this topic is to lead you, by way of teaching, into the
realm of stealing as an offence and thereafter lay bare to you the offence
of receiving stolen goods which cannot be committed in law unless
stealing occurs first. At the end of this lecture, you will have a sound
knowledge of the law regarding the subject matter.
58
state and explain the law that relates to receiving stolen goods.
See the case of Olujomoye v. R (1963) 3 WACA 71. This case deals
with the elements of control. The accused must have control over the
movement of the property. The case also deals with a joint possession
between the receiver and the thief.
Where the receiver pays for the goods but the thief agrees to keep the
goods, it is said in law that the receiver has constructive possession
while the thief has physical or actual possession. If the thief has
exclusive possession, the receiver cannot be said to have possession and
thus cannot be charged for receiving. See R. v. Osakwe (1963). There
are situations where the thief can also be charged with receiving the
same goods alleged to be stolen by him within the context of the
provisions of section 7 of the criminal code. See R. v. Saliba (1973)
QDR 142.
59
The prosecution must prove that at the time of receiving the goods, the
accused knew that they were stolen or obtained by means of an act
constituting a felony or misdemeanour. Guilty knowledge may be
proved directly by way of confession or in any of the following ways:
1. By lies told by the accused person.
2. By any suspicious circumstance surrounding the transaction. For
example, if the goods were sold secretly in the night or they are
sold by a person who ordinarily would not have been in a
position to sell them. Reference may be made here to the case of
Lawani v. Police (1952) 20 NRL 87 or if they were sold at a price
fixed by the person receiving, see R. v. Braimah (1943) WACA
60
ii. Evidence has been given that the property in respect of which the
offender is being tried was found or had been found in his
possession.
61
fast rule associated with it. See the case of R. v. Iyakwe (1944) 1
WACA 180.
This offence is criminalized in section 430 (1) of the criminal code and
it states that any person who is charged before any court with having in
his possession or under his control in any manner or in any place or that
he at any time within three moths immediately preceding the making of
the complaint, anything which is reasonably suspected of having been
stolen or unlawfully obtained and he does not give an account to the
satisfaction of the court as to how he came by the same, is guilty of an
offence. One may quickly add here that section 430 (1) of the criminal
code is designed to cover cases where at the time of arrest, the police
cannot show that the goods were stolen but they reasonably suspect
them to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained, it does not apply to any
case where the goods are known to have been stolen and the owner is
traced. See the case of Oguntolu v. Police (1953) 20 NLR 128. The
suspicion expected from the prosecution is that of a reasonable man,
warranted by facts from which inferences can be drawn: Boulos v. R
(1954) 14 WACA 543.
As a result of the tendency by the police to abuse the provision of
section 430(1) of the criminal code, it has been held that in order to
avoid the visitation of hardship and mischief on innocent persons, its
application should be done with the greatest caution in order to bring
about the real intendment of the section. See case of R. v. Ayanshina
(1951) 13 WACA 260.
62
4.0 CONCLUSION
5.0 SUMMARY
63
This unit attempts to groom you on the offences of burglary and house
breaking. The unit is sub-divided as follows:
CONTENTS
64
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Background
3.2 Breaking
3.3 Entering
3.4 Intent
3.5 Dwelling House
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The content in this unit is predicated on two offences: burglary and
house breaking. The time in which the act is done determines whether
the offence is burglary or house breaking. Burglary is committed at
night while house breaking occurs in the day time.
2.0 OBJECTIVE
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
3.1 Background
65
3.2 Breaking
If breaking is in the day time and entry is at night or vice versa, the
offence is not burglary. Also breaking and entry need not necessarily
occur in the same night. See the English case of R. v. Smith. In that
case, breaking was on a Friday night and entry on Saturday night. But a
question would arise where the accused person’s time piece is defective.
It is submitted that the accused would be liable to the extent of mistake.
See section 25 of the Criminal Code.
Actual Breaking
66
ordinarily used as a means of entrance”. See section 410 and the case of
R. v. Boyle (1954) 2QB 292.
3.3 Entering
Under the common law, Smith and Hogan in their book Criminal Law at
p.583 argue that there is a distinction between insertion of a limb and the
insertion of an instrument. The learned authors contend that insertion of
limb for the purpose of breaking constitutes an entry while the insertion
of an instrument for the same purpose of breaking does not. They argue
that insertion of an instrument could only constitute entry if it was done
for the purpose of committing the ultimate felony in respect of which
accused intended to enter the dwelling house.
3.4 Intent
For the offences of burglary and house breaking to succeed, the intent to
commit a felony, (not necessarily stealing) must exist at the time of
breaking and entry. The felony contemplated here may be murder,
arson or rape, etc.
67
Illustration
In R. v. Rose (1965) QWN 35, the court held that a structure such as a
caravan which is kept by the occupier for the residence of himself is a
dwelling house. Similarly, in R. v. Halloran (1967) QWN 59 a motel
unit occupied by a lodger for a week was held to be dwelling house.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In the unit, you were made to understand that for the offence of house
breaking and burglary to be proved, the following elements of the crime
must be present:
68
The element of time also has to be put into consideration in defining the
type of crime committed. The unit demonstrates for your understanding
the requirements for certain crimes against property by considering the
possible liability to an accused for the crime of house breaking and
burglary with intent to commit a crime.
5.0 SUMMARY
69
UNIT 3 TREASON
This unit is an attempt to analytically examine the offence of treason and
it will be treated against the backdrop of the following items:
CONTENTS
70
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Criminalization
3.2 Levying War
3.3 Treasonable Felonies
3.4 Limitation of Time
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Treason is a felony and it is committed against lawfully constituted
government of the State or the Federation of Nigeria.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
MAIN CONTENT
Criminalisation
The offence of treason is contained in section 37(1) of the criminal code.
That section states that any person who levies/wages war against the
State in order to intimidate or overawe the President or the Governor of
a State, is guilty of treason, and is liable to the punishment of death.
In Enahoro v. R (1965) 1 All NLR 125, the court held that a conspiracy
to levy war against the State, which is treason under section 37(2) of the
Criminal Code should be charged under that section and not under
71
section 516 which deals with conspiracies generally. This means that
section 37(2) was the appropriate section on which the accused could be
properly charged.
The above dictum was cited with approval in the celebrated case of
R. v. Enahoro (1963) LL 91 at 312.
The war levied by the accused must be for a general and public purpose.
If it is done merely for a private purpose, the offence may be termed as a
riot. See R. v. Hardie (1821) 1 St. Tr 609.
The decision of the apex court has been criticized on the ground that
having regard to the wordings of the offence of treason under section
37(1) of the Criminal Code, the prosecution must prove in addition to
other ingredients, that the President was personally intimidated and
overawed. For example, the State Nigeria is a different person from
whoever occupies the office of President. If the prosecution proves that
war has been levied against the State and that person has intimidated and
overawed the President, conviction will lie against the accused.
It seems plain that the above decision was predicated on policy with a
view to guarding against the untoward conduct of treason against the
State but was not based on the proper interpretation of section 37(1).
Under section 40, of the Criminal Code, any person who becomes an
accessory after the fact to treason or knowing that another person
intends to commit treason, fails to give prompt information thereof to
72
4.0 CONCLUSION
5.0 SUMMARY
73
74
In this unit, you will be exposed to the offence of rape which is rarely
reported amongst the adult and which is more often committed
particularly against very young girls. This unit will examine the
following sub-themes:
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Detailed Facts
3.2 Capacity
3.3 Carnal Knowledge
3.4 Consent
3.5 Mental Elements Required for Commission for the
Offence of Rape
3.6 Attempted Rape
3.7 Evidential Corroboration in Sexual Offences
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The offence of rape very frequently occurs but is very rarely reported.
This centres on the fact that very often the victims, usually female
adults, protect their personality and integrity and therefore shy away
from laying complaint against the accused.
The offence is committed when the accused, usually a male, without the
consent of the victim or through consent obtained by fraud or
intimidation, has a carnal knowledge of the complainant.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
75
Section 357 of the Criminal Code defines rape and it has this to say:
“Any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of woman or girl
without her consent or with her consent, if the consent is obtained by
force or by means of false or fraudulent representation as to the nature of
act, or in the case of a married woman by impersonating her husband, is
guilty of the offence which is called rape”.
Furthermore, section 358 states that “any person who commits the
offence of rape is liable to imprisonment for life, with or without
canning”. In discussing the offence of rape as contained in section 357
of the Criminal Code, there are basic issues worth considering.
3.2 Capacity
The provision of section 30 of the Criminal Code says that “a male
person under the age of 12 years is presumed to be incapable of having
carnal knowledge”. It follows from this that he cannot be guilty of the
offence of rape or attempted rape, although on such a charge, he may be
convicted of indecent assault. See section176 of the Criminal Procedure
Act Cap 80 of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.
76
From the foregoing, it is clear that for the offence of rape to succeed, the
accused must possess the capacity to commit it. Furthermore, another
question may be whether a husband can be guilty of rape upon his wife?
The case of R. v. Clarke (1949) 33 Cr. APP R. 448 per the judgment of
Byne, J adopts the view of Hale as to why a husband cannot be guilty of
rape upon his wife. The reason is that, if the marriage has been
dissolved, or if a competent court has made a separation order
containing a non-cohabitation clause: that the spouse be no longer bound
to cohabit with her husband, the implied consent to intercourse at
marriage is revoked while the order is in force, it will be rape for the
husband to have intercourse with the spouse without her consent. Also,
if there is a decree absolute, then the husband can be charged with rape,
as the marital link would have ceased to exist. It may be borne in mind
that an undertaking by a husband (in lieu of injunction) not to assault,
molest or otherwise interfere with his wife… is equivalent to an
injunction and has the effect of revoking the implied consent to
intercourse. See R. v. Steel (1977) Crium. LR 290.
However, the mere fact that a wife has presented a petition for divorce
does not by itself revoke the implied consent to intercourse. See the
case of R. v. Miller (1954) 2 282. In that case, the complainant had left
the accused, her husband, and had filed a petition for divorce on the
ground of adultery. The hearing started and was adjoined so that the
accused might attend and give evidence. Later, the accused had
intercourse with his wife against her will. He was charged with rape and
assault occasioning actual bodily harm. It was held that the accused was
not guilty of rape but of common assault.
77
78
It has however been held that even the slightest penetration will be
sufficient to constitute the act of sexual intercourse. The fact that a
prosecutrix, who is alleged defiled, is found to be virgointcta (i.e. a
virgin) is not inconsistent with partial sexual intercourse and the court
will be entitled to find that sexual intercourse has occurred if it is
satisfied on the point from all the evidence led and surrounding
circumstance of the case. Where penetration is proved but not of such a
depth as to injure the hymen, it was held sufficient to constitute the
crime of rape. Proof of the rupture of the hymen is therefore
unnecessary to establish the offence of rape”.
It is settled law that the act of sexual intercourse which follows is part of
the offence itself, so that aid given after penetrating makes the aider a
party to the offence. See R. v. Mayberry (1973) QDR 211 and note as
well the dissenting view of Skerman, J. at p. 161. See Okonkwo’s
Criminal Law in Nigeria.
3.4 Consent
The law is that for one to have a carnal knowledge of a sleeping woman,
one is said to have committed the offence of rape. It is also rape to have
carnal knowledge of woman by impersonating her husband. Submission
by a person of weak intellect or a person who is young to understand the
nature of the act done is no consent. It must be stated that, no consent is
effective which is obtained by fraud relating to the nature of act. See the
case of R. v. Flattery (1877) 2 QBD 17.
79
Some people have argued that it is impossible for a woman who has not
accepted or consented to be raped, since before acceptance of the penis,
there must be the lubrication of the vagina. That is to say: “there could
only be an absence of consent of the prosecutrix’s mind had been
overborne by fear of death of duress.”
80
If the accused person believed that the woman was consenting, he would
not be guilty of rape even though he had no reasonable grounds for his
belief. The mental element of rape is intention to have sexual
intercourse without the woman’s consent or with indifference as to
whether the woman consented or not – see DPP v. Morgan (1975) 2 All
ER 347 to the effect that a man cannot be convicted of rape, if he
believed albeit mistakenly that the woman gave her consent, even
though he had no reasonable ground for the belief.
The position of the law in DPP v. Morgan (supra) is valid and good law
in Nigeria because if an accused person pleads that he believed the
woman was consenting, he does not thereby bear the burden of
establishing the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of facts as
articulated in section 25 of the Criminal Code.
The case of Jegede v. The State (2000) may be instructive. The accused
was alleged to have grabbed a school girl under 13 years and raped her
in a disused school toilet. The sexual attack was alleged to have taken
place on 24th May. The medical examination which took place on the
26th found evidence of tender vagina, purplish blue mucosa,
staphylococcus and yeast cells. The pathologist opined that these might
be due to traumatic inflammation and “forceful penetration of the genital
trait”.
81
The accused denied the allegations and intended that the school girl was
his pupil at a private tuition school and her father owed him unpaid fees
which the girl too denied. Her father was not called as a witness, and
worked in the same hospital as the pathologist.
The trial court convicted the accused of rape. The Court of Appeal
quashed the conviction and sentence and substituted a conviction for
attempted rape. Dissatisfied, the accused further appealed to the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed:
Absence of such evidence was fatal to any charge of rape. The Supreme
Court also considered the conviction for attempted rape as ‘unfortunate’
adding that to constitute an attempt, the act must be immediately
connected with the commission of the particular offence charged and
must be something more than mere preparation or the commission of the
offence. See R. v. Eagleton (1855), Ozigbo v. COP (1936) and Orija v.
IGP (1957).
Where the other ingredients of rape are present but the facts of
penetration is lacking or cannot be proved, the accused may be
convicted of attempted rape.
There are certain sexual offences with which the accused cannot be
convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony or evidence of one
witness. These are offences bordering on defilement of a girl under
thirteen. See section 218 of the Criminal Code.
For defilement of girls under sixteen and above thirteen and idiots, see
section 211 of the Criminal Code; procuration of a girl or woman for
unlawful carnal knowledge or for prostitution whether in Nigeria or else
where, see section 223 of the Criminal Code and procuring defilement
of a woman by threat or administering drugs. See section 224 of the
Criminal code.
In other sexual offences where the law has not specifically said the
accused cannot be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of one
witness, the courts are reluctant to convict upon the uncorroborated
82
The court may after paying due attention to the warning nevertheless
convict the accused person if it is satisfied with the truth of her
evidence. The reluctance of the courts to convict upon uncorroborated
testimony of one witness is not predicated on law but on a rule of thumb
or practice. But the court may after warning itself nevertheless convict
on an uncorroborated evidence of a prosecution if it is satisfied of the
truth of her evidence. See the cases of Summonu v. Police (1957)
WRNLR 23 at 24 and R. v. Ekelagu (1960) 5 FSC 217.
It is not enough that the evidence tends to corroborate any part of the
story told by the complainant. It must corroborate substantially her
evidence. Indeed, it is trite law that evidence in corroboration must be
independent testimony, direct or circumstantial, which confirms in some
material particular not only that an offence has been committed but that
the accused has committed it. On a charge of rape, therefore, the
corroborative evidence must confirm in some material particular than
83
4.0 CONCLUSION
Rape is a crime and in this unit we have explained the requirement for
liability for certain sexual crimes by considering the possible liability of
an accused for rape, attempted rape, etc. We have been able to explain
the punishment for rape and attempted rape and how the crime of rape
can be proved in the law court.
5.0 SUMMARY
84
85
The essence of this unit is to acquaint you with the theories and types of
punishment. If the court finds the accused person who was standing
trial before it to be guilty of the offence for which he is being charged
the court will then decide on the type of punishment to visit on the
accused persons depending however on the provision of the law. This
unit is treated thus:
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Retribution (Fair Deserts)
3.2 The Idea of Responsibility
3.3 Utilitarian Purpose of Punishment
3.4 Disablement
3.5 Deterrence
3.6 Rehabilitation
3.7 Educative Principle
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The essence of punishment in a criminal trial is to subject the accused to
some form of deprivation in as much the same way as it will also satisfy
the aspiration of the complainant. The punishment to be meted out by
the court is not at the whims and caprices to the court. The court itself is
guided by certain principles while awarding punishments which are
treated in this topic. The court will also look at the sanction provision of
the enactment which creates the offence in question.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
86
87
Thus, the significance of the just desert notion lies in the fact that it acts
as a check on the principles of deterrence (which are forward looking
principles) or reform. It may well be added that a punishment may be
justified by the aims it hopes to achieve, but it can also be fair and
imposed on conduct, in such manner which the citizen has a responsible
ground of knowing such conduct to be criminal.
The second stage of the trial is used to describe the finding that not only
did the accused do the act or make the omission with which he is
charged but also that in the eyes of the law, he is responsible for it. The
third stage is that of sentence. Here punishment may be mitigated
(lessened or reduced) on the ground that his responsibility though
proved, was not very great and at this stage, there are degrees of
responsibility.
88
There are about four utilitarian principles and to the analysis of these,
we now turn.
3.4 Disablement
3.5 Deterrence
89
Okonkwo and Naish submit that the principle of deterrence does not
play any useful part in punishment and so should be applied with
caution.
90
4.0 CONCLUSION
Rehabilitation
Reformation and education of the offender.
The tripod on which justice is hung i.e. justice to the victim, justice to
the accused and justice to the society was also held in a delicate balance
by the various themes and types of punishment as exposed by the unit.
The effort here is to show that punishment serves a correctional role in
out legal system.
5.0 SUMMARY
91
92
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Detailed Work
3.2 The English Position
3.3 The Nigerian Position
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OBJECTIVES
93
The courts are often thrown into grave decision of policy at the two
stages of sentencing process. In the first place, they have to decide from
amongst the conflicting principles of punishment which they should
apply to the facts of a particular case. In the second place, having
settled for a particular principle, to apply, they must discover which type
and what quantum (measure) of sentence will be accorded with it. But it
seems plain to say that all too often, a punishment is imposed because it
is the traditional one for that type of offence and some busy judges and
magistrates do not see the need for a conscious and deliberate thought
about the philosophy and practice of punishment when handing down
their sentences.
94
4.0 CONCLUSION
5.0 SUMMARY
95
96
In this unit, you will be introduced to the institution called the police and
the role it plays in the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria. This
unit is summarized as follows:
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Historical Evolution
3.2 Establishment
3.3 Arrest
3.3.1 With Warrant
3.3.2 Without Warrant
3.3.3 Life Span of Warrant of Arrest
3.4 Searches
3.5 Prevention of Crimes
3.6 Granting Police Bail
3.7 Institution and Conduct of Criminal Proceeding
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
97
The Nigeria Police has an antecedent that cannot be forgotten too soon.
According to historical analysis, it is often said that even in the
unrefined pre-colonial Nigeria, there existed institutions that played the
roles of keeping the peace, preventing crimes.
This moved from the very unrefined era up to the twilight era. Writing
in his book - Constitutional Law in Nigeria – particularly at p. 433
Professor Oluyele said it all thus “Although it is arguable, the tribes,
individuals, communities and towns in the land area now known as
Nigeria, had their own system of police force… the truth is that the
Nigerian Police Force found in our statute books today, was introduced
into this country by the British”.
Therefore it is apt to opine that the origin, development and the role of
the British inspired police system was shaped by the nature of European
interest in this part of the world and the reactions of native communities.
Thus when Mecoskry, the British Consul discovered that king Dosumu
and his chiefs opposed the annexation of Lagos and situation was rather
dangerous for his safety, he began to establish a police force. That
exercise began the fist modern police force in the history of the colony
of Lagos. It was also the first modern police force in the territories later
designated as Nigeria.
3.2 Establishment
Section 214(2) of the Constitution afore said provides that subject to the
provisions of the Constitution (a) the Nigeria Police Force shall be
98
Against the background of the foregoing there is the Police Ac, Cap 359
LFN 1990. Section 4 of that Act has spelt out in detail the duties of the
police. That section reads “The police shall be employed for the
prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the
preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and the
due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly
charged, and shall perform such military duties within or without
Nigeria as may be required of them by or under the authority of this or
any other Act.”
3.3 Arrest
The case of Sadiq v. The State (1982) 2 NCR 142 graphically illustrate
what constitute arrest in the eyes of the law. In that case, the accused
was invited by a police officer to the police station for questioning over
the commission of an alleged offence. The accused refused to
accompany the police officer to the police station. Thereafter, other
officers were sent to the accused and she was persuaded to accompany
them to the police station. The accused was charged and convicted of
the offence of resisting police arrest. On appeal against her conviction,
the appellate court held that the appellant was never arrested by the
police officers because there was no restraining of the appellant.
There are two ways by which an arrest can be made:
99
Under section 10(1) of the CPA, any police officer may without an order
from a magistrate and without a warrant arrest:
Any person who commits any offence in hi presence (I hold the view
that in view of (a) above, (b) there should be properly re-couched in
order to take care of the exception provided in (a) above).
Any person who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his
duty or who has escaped or attempt to escape from lawful custody.
100
The power conferred on a police under section 10 (1)(b) of the CPA and
section 26(a) of the CPC to arrest any person who commits an offence in
his presence is an absolute power and therefore it is not subject to any
limitation contemplated in section 10(1)(a) of the CPA. Thus even
where the statute creating the offence provides that a person who
commits the offence cannot be arrested without a warrant, that limitation
is ineffective if the offence is committed in the presence of a police
officer. See section 10(1) (b) of the CPA.
Section 11 of the CPA and section 26 of the CPC gives the police the
power to arrest any person suspected of having committed an offence
who refused to give his name and address and may eventually give
information that is false.
Section 55 of the CPA and section 26(e) of the CPC gives the police
power to arrest any person known to be designing to commit any
offence, it is appears to the officer that the commission of the offence
cannot otherwise be prevented.
However, if any arrest has been made on its authority and the person
arrested is later released, the warrant is no more a valid authority for re-
arresting him. A new warrant has to be issued.
101
3.4 Searches
Search of Premises
A police officer of the rank of cadet ASP can issue a search warrant but
this power is not wide as that of a magistrate. The reason is that he can
only issue search warrants on any shop, warehouse or other premises
which within the proceeding of 12 months was in occupation of any
person convicted of receiving stolen property or harbouring thieves or
fraud or dishonesty and is liable to be imprisoned – see section 24 of the
Police Act.
102
On the time for execution of a search warrant, I refer you to section 111
of the CPA and for the execution of search warrant generally, see
section 112 of the CPA and sections 78(1), 79 and 81(1) of the CPC.
Section 4 of the Police Act provides inter alia that the police shall be
employed for the prevention and detection of crimes, the apprehension
of offenders and the preservation of law and order.
Also, section 53 of the CPA provides that a police officer may intervene
for the purpose of preventing and shall to the best of his ability prevent
the commission of an offence.
Again, section 275 of the criminal code particularly in its 2nd limb says
that is lawful for a peace officer or police officer who witnessed a
breach of the peace, and for any person lawfully assisting him, to arrest
any person whom he finds committing it, or whom he believes on
reasonable grounds to be about to join in or renew the breach of the
peace.
The issue of police bail arises after a person arrested without a warrant
of arrest is taken to the police station. The officer in charge of the police
station may admit the suspect to bail pending subsequent investigation
into the matter. The suspect is usually granted bail upon his entering
into a bond or recognisance with or without sureties to appear at the
police station at such time as are named in the bond. See section 17 and
18 of the CPA. The bail granted by the police while investigations are
continuing into the allegation against the accused is to enable him to
103
This duty of the police is contained in section 35 of the Police Act which
states “Subject to the provisions of section 150 and section 195 of the
Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (which relates to the power of AG of the
Federation and AG of a state to institute and undertake, take over and
continue or discontinue criminal proceedings against any person before
any court of laws in Nigeria) any police officer may conduct in person
all prosecutions before any court whether or not the information is laid
in his name.
4.0 CONCLUSION
This unit has stressed the importance of the Nigeria Police in the
criminal justice system in Nigeria. It also stresses the reason behind the
numerous statutory powers conferred on the Police i.e. power of arrest,
search, prosecution, detain, grant bail, prevention of crime and the
centrality of the Police to good governance and accountability.
5.0 SUMMARY
The Nigeria Police Force is created by law to maintain law and order
in the society.
Section 24 creates the Nigeria Police Force.
The Police has authority to arrest suspected criminals.
It also has the power to search.
It prevents crimes in the society.
It can also grant bail whenever the need arises.
It has the power to institute and conduct criminal proceedings.
104
105