HOMICIDE IN NIGERIA

 

ABSTRACT

In many civilized countries of the world, though murder is still considered to be a heinous form of homicide, it no more carries the capital punishment of death. In the England and Wales, the punishment for murder is a mandatory life imprisonment. Nigeria borrowed her criminal law on homicide from Britain and they have since made many amendments to the law on homicide.

This work focuses on the judicial decision on homicide in Nigeria.

 

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Murder is the most heinous offence against the person. The offence both from the viewpoint of consequences vis-à-vis sanction is disastrous. It is disastrous in view of the fact that to kill a person, means a complete annihilation of his existence, as well as that of the murderer, if the latter’s act is adjudged to be unlawful or unjustified. Life itself is a divine gift: for God has commanded that “you must not murder.”1

It is in view of this, that the termination of life is universally acknowledged to be the function of the Creator Who gave it.2 This perhaps, explains why life is considered to be sacred and, the reason behind the contention whether human authorities have the competence to terminate it. The school of thought which supports the contention that human authority can terminate life in appropriate circumstances; have argued that there is no crime of homicide.3 By this, it is meant that homicide is only unlawful, where it is not justified or authorized by law. This is the purport of section 306 of the Criminal Code (applicable in the Southern States of Nigeria) which provides that “It is unlawful to kill any person unless such killing is authorized or justified by law.”

This means that the sacrosanct of life, may be breached by sovereign authorities – if to do so would make things even i.e. (for example) that he who kills, must also be killed. The above assertion is enshrined in section 33 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, wherein the right to life is protected, but may be derogated in the interests of private defence of any person or to protect any person from unlawful violence, or for the defence of property, or killing in order to effect a lawful arrest, or killing done for the purpose of suppressing riot, insurrection or mutiny.4

In English Law, the urge to exert the maximum punishment in murder cases, in consonance with the principles of retribution (retributive justice, or deserts) have been abolished. Under that law, death sentence is now regarded as archaic. Thus, in English law, since the abolition of the death penalty by the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, a judge has no discretion on sentencing.5 The judge is compelled to impose a sentence of life imprisonment on conviction for murder.6

The crucial issue in the offence of murder borders on intention. What is the requisite mens rea for murder under English law is still riddled with controversies. In Moloney,7 Lord Bridge commenting on mens rea for murder, said:

First, was death or really serious injury…natural consequences of the defendant’s voluntary act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act? The jury should then be told that if they answer yes to both questions it is proper inference for them to draw that he intended that consequences.

In Hyam8 the majority of the judges felt that foresight by the accused that death or grievous bodily harm (g.b.h.) was highly probable was sufficient mens rea for murder. The House of Lords in Cunningham9 removed the uncertainties caused by the disparate reasoning used by the individual law Lords in the case Hyam v. D.P.P and confirmed that an intention to cause g.b.h. was sufficient men are for murder.

This paper intends to do a critical re-examination of the definition of murder, as propounded by Coke. The one year and a day rule will also be re-examined, in order to buttress the argument that the rule is out-moded in view of the fact, that current medical diagnosis can assist pathologists to trace with precision, the cause of death, irrespective of the time lag. The cases of people in persistent vegetative state will be examined. The persistent vegetative state (p.v.s.) is a system whereby medical machinery can be used to keep people alive for long periods. The aim of examining this type of medical system is to determine whether a conviction for murder or manslaughter should hang on the chance factor of when medical aid is withdrawn. For all practical purposes, murder is the gravest offence in the criminal law and, in English law; mandatory life imprisonment is now the most severe sentence. In Nigeria, the sentence for murder is death. In English law, since the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 198010, which was not implemented, there have been significant changes in the definition of murder. This can be seen from the re-affirmation of the “g.b.h rule” in Cunningham11 to the question over the meaning of intention in Moloney and Hancock and Shankland.

• Statement of the Problem

Life is sacred and is considered so in all cultures and civilizations. Hence in many jurisdictions, the willful termination of the life of  human being by another human being is viewed as a grievous offence. The common law at its early stage viewed such a killing as so serious that it was hardly excusable. Except in a few cases, the very fact of causing the death of a human being is already an imputable crime even where one did not intend or foresee death as the result of one’s conduct. The problems associated with murder has caused so many people to live in fear of their own life. The attempt to protect oneself helps in encouraging murder. Reoccurrence of this indecent act by the citizens has drawn the attention of the international communities, scholars, students, etc, to make findings on the subject matter.

 

• OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objectives of this study is summarized below

1. To categorically state what the law says about those who are guilty of the crime (Homicide) in Nigeria.
2. To review previous cases on homicide in other to see if the law concerning homicide still exist in today’s Nigeria law.
3. To review homicide law in other countries to see if the penalty to the defaulters is the same with that of Nigeria.
4. To also check the rates of homicide cases in Nigeria
5. And to provide solutions to help reduce the rate of this crime.
   • RESEARCH QUESTION

In other to achieve the objective of the study and proffering solution to problem of the study, the following research question were formulated:

 

1. How do we ascertain those who are guilty of homicide?
2. What are the causes of homicide in Nigeria?

• What are the role of judiciary in combating homicide?

1. How can the judiciary eradicate this menace

 

 

 

• SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

It is conceived that at the completion of the study its findings would be beneficial to:

1. The law enforcement agency in combating homicide cases
2. The lawyers in ascertain the crime pattern

• The academia in educating the students

1. Researchers and the general public

1.6 SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

This study covers the impact and effect judicial homicide in Nigeria. However, the study has some limitation which are:

1. a) AVAILABILITY OF RESEARCH MATERIAL: The research material available to the researcher is insufficient, thereby limiting the study
2. b) TIME: The time frame allocated to the study does not enhance wider coverage as the researcher have to combine other academic activities and examinations with the study.
3. c) Organizational privacy: Limited Access to the selected auditing firm makes it difficult to get all the necessary and required information concerning the activities

 

1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

This research work is organized in five chapters, for easy understanding, as follows

Chapter one is concern with the introduction, which consist of the (overview, of the study), statement of problem, objectives of the study, research question, significance or the study, research methodology, definition of terms and historical background of the study. Chapter two highlight the theoretical framework on which the study its based, thus the review of related literature. Chapter three deals on the research design and methodology adopted in the study. Chapter four concentrate on the data collection and analysis and presentation of finding.  Chapter five gives summary, conclusion, and recommendations made of the study.

1.8 DEFINITION OF TERMS

Homicide

Homicide occurs when one human being causes the death of another. Homicides can be divided into many overlapping types, including murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, killing in war, euthanasia, and execution, depending on the circumstances of the death. These different types of homicides are often treated very differently in human societies; some are considered crimes, while others are permitted or even ordered by the legal system.

Criminal homicide

 Criminal homicide takes many forms including accidental or purposeful murder. The crime committed in a criminal homicide is determined by the mental state of the committing person and the extent of the crime. Murder, for example, is usually a godly crime. In many cases, homicide may in fact lead to life in prison and or even capital punishment,^[2] but if the defendant in a capital case is sufficiently mentally disabled in the United States he or she cannot be executed. Instead, the individual is placed under the category of “insane”. In some jurisdictions, a homicide that occurs during the commission of a crime may constitute murder, regardless of the actor’s intent to commit homicide.

Judiciary

The judiciary (also known as the judicial system or court system) is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. In some nations, under doctrines of separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make law (which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case. In other nations, the judiciary can make law, known as Common Law, by setting precedent for other judges to follow, as opposed to Statutory Law made by the legislature. The Judiciary is often tasked with ensuring equal justice under law.

Judicial Precedent

Judicial precedent means the process whereby judges follow previously decided cases where the facts are of sufficient similarity. The doctrine of judicial precedent involves an application of the principle of stare decisis i.e., to stand by the decided. In practice, this means that inferior courts are bound to apply the legal principles set down by superior courts in earlier cases. This provides consistency and predictability in the law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

₦5,000.00 – DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT Added to cart

---

---

---

---

Related Project Topics :