Yahaya Mohammed V. The State (1997)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

L. KUTIGI, J.S.C. 

In the High Court of Justice holden at Ikole-Ekiti, the appellant was charged with the offence of murder of one Janet Nwafor contrary to section 319(1) of the Criminal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. At the trial the prosecution called five witnesses to prove its case while the appellant testified on his own behalf and called two other witnesses in support.

The facts of the case are as stated by the single eye witness who testified as PW. 2. She was called Eunice Adenike Agbeniyi. She testified thus:-

“I knew one Janet Nwafor. She was my mother. She is now dead. I know the accused person. On 3/5/87 at about 5 p. m., I returned from school. I sat at the backyard carrying a child of one woman living in our house. She is Mrs. Adeoye. The accused was where I sat down. A woman then came and stood at the Sabo where Hausa people collect to sell their goods. She called the accused, wishing to buy beans from him. He did not respond. The woman told me to help her call the accused. I then informed the accused that the woman was calling him. He suddenly gave me a slap (on my face) Mrs. Adeoye and Baba Aina were there. I started weeping and was cleaning my face. I did not know who went to call my mother. When she got to me, she asked what happened to me. Mrs. Adeoye was still there. She narrated to my mother how the accused came to slap me. That she did not know what the witness did to the accused to warrant the accused slapping the witness. Before my mother turned her back, the accused had gone inside to bring out an axe and hit my mother with it. He hit my mother on the forehead and ribs’ side. My mother fell down after she had been hit with the axe. Baba Aina is called Shehu. He wanted to seize the axe from the accused telling him that my mother had not done anything to warrant the accused hitting my mother with the axe. The accused left my mother and, faced the Baba Aina and hit him with the axe. Witness identified Exhibit 1. My mother was then unconscious.”

Under cross-examination she continued thus:-

“I have known the accused for less than two years before the date of incident. It is about a year I knew him before the date of incident. There was no misunderstanding between him and us within that year. I never spoke with him. To my knowledge there was no quarrel between my mother and the accused. I was not seeing him every time. I never heard nor knew that the accused had mental derangement. I was not aware of this. I and the accused were not accustomed to talking to each other. I saw Exhibit 1 on that day. That was why I could identify it today.”

The incident happened on 3/6/87 while the deceased died in hospital on 20/6/87. Dr Paul Aderemi Adekoje performed autopsy on the dead body. His report was admitted as Exhibit 2 in evidence. In his opinion the cause of death was:-

“due to infection of the brain due to fracture to the skull bone caused by a sharp object.”

In the course of Police investigations also the appellant volunteered a statement to the police in Yoruba which was later translated into English. These were tendered as Exhibits 3 & 4 respectively by Police Sergeant Mathew Oluwole Olawoyeye, who testified as PW. 5 at the trial. The defence of the appellant was in short that of insanity.

At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge in a considered judgment found the appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to death. The defence of insanity put up by the appellant was rejected when he observed:-

“Though the onus that rests upon the accused is the civil one, in my view, this onus has not been discharged. Having held that the accused’s evidence attracts no probative value upon the authorities, having also held that the evidence of DW. 3 supports the prosecution’s case that the accused was sane rather than insane between 1984 and the time of the incident, I am left with the evidence of DW.1 which I have held did not go far enough to establish that the accused was insane at the relevant time he committed the crime.”

Whether or not the evidence of DW. 3 wholly supported prosecution’s case and whether the evidence of DW.1 amongst others, actually fell short of what was required to establish the defence of insanity will soon be examined.

Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal holden at Benin-City. One of the five issues submitted for determination in that court was:-

“5. Whether the learned trial Judge properly considered relevant evidence relating to the defence of insanity before him and whether he was right in his judgment that there was no evidence on which the defence of insanity could be founded.”