- INTENTION/MOTIVE
- MISTAKE
- CORPORATION
- HUSBAND AND WIFE
- EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
- COMPULSION/COERCION
- BONAFIDE CLAIM OF RIGHT
- INTOXICATION
- INSANITY AND IMMATURITY
- PROVOCATION
- NECESSITY
- SELF DEFENCE
- DEFENCE OF ANOTHER PERSON
- DEFENCE OF PROPERTY
Intention/Motive
Intention refers to the mental state of the accused at the time of committing the crime. It implies that the accused person meant to commit the act and was aware of its consequences while motive, on the other hand, is the reason behind committing the crime. While motive may be relevant in understanding the context of a crime, it is not essential for establishing criminal liability. See section 7 of the Criminal Code Act which provides that "a person who does an act with intent to cause the consequences which constitute the crime is deemed to have intended to cause those consequences, though the person did not actually foresee them." See the case of R v. Gusau (1962) NMLR 191 where the accused aimed his gun at the victim and shot, indicating clear intention to cause harm.
Mistake
Mistake of fact can be a defense if it negates the required mental state for the offense. For instance, if someone honestly and reasonably believes they are acting in self-defense, they may not have the requisite intent for a murder charge. However, mistake of law is generally not a defense in Nigerian criminal law. See section 24 of the Criminal Code Act provides for mistake of fact as a defense and the case of R v. Igbo (1963) NMLR 122 where the accused mistakenly believed the victim was an armed robber and acted in self-defense.
Corporation
Corporations can be held criminally liable for offenses committed by their agents or employees during the course of their employment and in furtherance of the corporation's interests see section 66 of the Criminal Code Act which states that "every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which the person shall be guilty within Nigeria." See the case of A.G. Lagos State v. Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 552 where the court held that a corporation can be held liable for the criminal acts of its employees.
Husband and Wife
The legal principle of marital immunity historically protected spouses from being prosecuted for certain crimes committed against each other. However, this principle has been largely abolished in Nigerian law. See section 2 of the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, 2015, which criminalizes various forms of violence within domestic relationships, including spousal violence and the case of A.G. Lagos State v. Olaoluwa (2017) LPELR-43689(CA) where the court upheld the conviction of a husband for assaulting his wife, affirming the principle of gender equality in criminal law.
Exemption from Criminal Responsibility
Certain individuals may be exempted from criminal responsibility due to their official capacity, such as judges, legislators, or law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their duties. See section 308 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which provides immunity from civil and criminal proceedings for the President, Vice President, Governors, and Deputy Governors and the case of A.G. Federation v. Alhaji Atiku Abubakar (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 459 where the court ruled on the extent of immunity granted to certain public officials under the Constitution.
Compulsion/Coercion
A person may be excused from criminal liability if they were compelled to commit an offense under duress or coercion, where their life or safety was threatened. See section 29 of the Criminal Code Act which provides for the defense of compulsion and the case of R v. Nasamu (1959) SCNLR 32 where the accused was threatened with death if he did not commit the crime, leading the court to recognize the defense of compulsion.
Bona Fide Claim of Right
A bona fide claim of right defense arises when a person honestly believes they have a legal right to the property or action in question, even if that belief is mistaken. See section 22 of the Criminal Code Act provides for this defense and the case Oseni v. The State (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 83) 506 where the accused genuinely believed the property was rightfully his, leading to the recognition of the defense of bona fide claim of right.
Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication is generally not a defense to criminal liability unless it prevents the accused from forming the required intent for the offense. See section 28 of the Criminal Code Act which provides that voluntary intoxication is not a defense and the case of R v. Nsofor (1964) 1 All NLR 124 where the accused's intoxication prevented him from forming the intent required for murder, leading to a reduced charge.
Insanity and Immaturity
Insanity or mental incapacity can be a defense if it prevents the accused from understanding the nature and consequences of their actions. See section 28 of the Criminal Code Act provides that insanity is a defense and the case of R v. Momodu (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) 139 where the accused was found not guilty by reason of insanity due to a diagnosed mental disorder. Immaturity, particularly in the case of minors, can also affect criminal responsibility, as they may not fully comprehend the consequences of their actions.
Provocation
Provocation refers to actions or words that cause someone to lose control of their emotions, leading them to commit a criminal act in the heat of the moment. In Nigeria, the Criminal Code Act (CCA) and the Penal Code Act (PCA) provide guidance on provocation. See section 283 of the CCA and Section 222 of the PCA state that provocation can reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter if it can be proven that the accused acted in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation. See the case of In R v. Mba (1976), where the Nigerian court held that provocation must be such that it would make a reasonable person momentarily lose self-control.
Necessity
Necessity refers to situations where a person commits a criminal act to prevent a greater harm or evil. The Nigerian law recognizes the defense of necessity under certain circumstances. See section 23 of the Criminal Code Act states that conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense can be justified if it was necessary to avoid a greater harm. See the case of R v. Odu (1963), where the Nigerian court held that necessity can be a valid defense if the accused acted to prevent a greater harm and had no reasonable alternative.
Self-Defence
Self-defence refers to the right to protect oneself from harm when faced with imminent danger. See sections 33 and 34 of the Criminal Code Act and Sections 59 and 60 of the Penal Code Act which recognize self-defence as a valid defense to a criminal charge. The force used must be proportionate to the threat faced. See the case of Abodundu v. The State (2010), where the Nigerian Court of Appeal held that self-defence is justifiable if the accused reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to protect themselves from imminent harm.
Defence of Another Person
Defence of another person refers to the right to use force to protect someone else from harm. The Nigerian law recognizes the defense of another person under Sections 34 and 35 of the Criminal Code Act and Sections 60 and 61 of the Penal Code Act. The force used must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat faced by the person being defended. See the case of R v. Balogun (1959), where the Nigerian court held that a person can use force to defend another if they reasonably believe that the other person is in imminent danger of harm.
Defence of Property
Defence of property refers to the right to use reasonable force to protect one's property from damage or theft. See section 31 of the Criminal Code Act and Section 76 of the Penal Code Act allow for the defence of property. However, the force used must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat posed to the property as in the case of Ewumi v. The State (2013), where the Nigerian Court of Appeal emphasized that while a person has the right to defend their property, the force used must not be excessive.
No comments:
Post a Comment