Anou Inyama V. The State (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MADARIKAN, J.S.C. 

Reasons are now given for dismissing this appeal at the hearing on the 6th of January, 1972.

The accused was convicted on the 12th of August, 1971, for the murder of his mother, Okpukulu Inyama, by Ogbobine, J., in the High Court, Ugheli ,(Mid-West State).

The facts relied upon by the prosecution were concisely as follows. The accused and his wife, Amekene Igwuoku (P.W.2), had lived happily together for about two years, and it would seem that during the third year of their marriage, he discovered that he could no longer have sexual intercourse with her. She told him that it was the deceased who had bewitched him and made him to become impotent. The testimony of P.W. 2 in this regard was that she had been a witch from her childhood and that she was present at a meeting of witches when

“The deceased contributed her son, the accused. The deceased brought the accused to our meeting and said that she would make it impossible for him to have sex with any woman. I objected to it that I would not see my lover being treated in that way. The penis of the accused was not shared out for eating, but they were firm that the accused could not have sex with any woman. As a result of what happened in the meeting, I told the accused it was his mother who had made him impotent. The accused could not have sex with me, and as a result of that the accused asked me to pack out of his house.”

The accused also testified on this point at the trial. He said:

“I know the cause of my impotence. P.W. 2 confessed to me that my mother was responsible for my inability to have sex with women. She explained to me that my mother had taken something from my penis and had taken it to their witchcraft meeting and offered it to the other members. P.W. 2 told me that every member of the witchcraft society contributed something and when it was her turn to bring something, she used my penis as her contribution. My wife, P.W. 2, told me that she was a member of their society. When P.W. 2 told me what my mother had done, I begged her to restore my penis. She admitted being responsible for my condition; and also mentioned the name of a sister who was also a member of the society. She told me to wait until she consulted the other members of the society. I waited for sometime and met her several times for about one year, but my condition continued to remain the same. P.W. 2 continued to remain with me.”

The accused continued his evidence by saying that he failed to convince the deceased to lift from him the baneful influence of witchcraft which had caused his impotency. He further stated that when the deceased gave him the impression that his condition was hopeless, he became annoyed and dealt several matchet blows on the deceased; battered her skull; and she died of haemorrhage resulting from the wounds.

On these facts, the learned trial Judge considered the defence of provocation which was urged upon the court by learned counsel for the accused. He rejected the evidence of the accused that it was when the deceased had told him that there was no hope of curing his impotency that he became annoyed, took up a matchet and killed the deceased. Rightly in our view, he came to the inevitable conclusion that the defence of provocation was not established, and in so doing he said:

“The fact that the deceased was alleged to be responsible for the sexual impotence of the accused was not sufficient justification to take her life. In taking this view I am fully conscious of the fact that the accused is illiterate and that he is capable of being easily angered by the thought that he is impotent. But if that anger is not accompanied by any utterances or act of the victim it cannot be said that the anger is serious enough to amount to provocation if at that moment he takes up a matchet and causes any injury to the victim. The anger must create such a state of affairs as to completely off-set his mind so that he cannot be said to be mentally responsible for the consequence of his sudden conduct in killing the victim. The accused knew all the time that he was impotent and there could not have been any surprise in being told that his condition was hopeless after accepting that condition for a year. The entire evidence reveals the necessary intent in a charge of murder as the accused was determined to kill the deceased from the moment he knew that she was responsible for his condition, and the only thing that would have saved the deceased from death was the restoration of his sexual ability.”

In conclusion, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused of murder as charged and sentenced him to death.

Before us on appeal, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to urge anything in favour of the appellant, and as we were of the opinion that the appellant was rightly convicted by the learned trial Judge, we dismissed his appeal.

SC.307/71