PARTIES TO AN OFFENCE: PRINCIPAL OFFENDERS

TOPIC OF THE DAY

- PARTIES TO AN OFFENCE

- PRIMARY OFFENDER

- AIDER AND ABETTOR

- PERSONS WHO COUNSEL OR PROCURE

- INNOCENT AGENCY

- INVALID CONSIDERATION

- MINOR VARIATION

- BREAK IN THE CHAIN OF COUNSELING OR PROCURING

Parties to an Offence

In Nigerian criminal law, the concept of "parties to an offence" refers to individuals who are involved in the commission of a crime. These individuals may include principal offenders, aiders and abettors, and those who counsel or procure the commission of an offence.

Principal Offenders

Principal offenders are individuals who directly commit the crime. They are the ones who physically carry out the illegal act that constitutes the offence. For example, in a case of theft, the person who actually steals the property would be considered the principal offender as seen in the case of R v. Adeleke (1964) NMLR 130 and section 7 of the Criminal Code Act (CCA) which provides that "when an offense is committed, each of the following persons is deemed to have taken part in committing the offense and to be guilty of the offense, and may be charged with actually committing it, that is to say, every person who actually does the act or makes the omission which constitutes the offense."

Aider and Abettor

An aider and abettor is someone who assists, encourages, or facilitates the commission of a crime, even if they do not directly participate in the criminal act itself. They may provide support, advice, or resources to the principal offender. In Nigerian law, aiders and abettors are treated as if they had committed the offence themselves as seen in the case of R v. Salami (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1101) 554 and section 85 of the CCA states that "any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offense shall be liable to be tried as a principal offender."

Persons who Counsel or Procure

Individuals who counsel or procure the commission of an offence are those who intentionally persuade, induce, or influence others to commit a crime. They may not directly participate in the criminal act but play a significant role in instigating it. In Nigerian law, those who counsel or procure an offence are considered equally liable as the principal offender as seen in the case of R v. Okoro (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 70) 692 and section 83 of the CCA holds that "any person who, with intent to procure the commission of any offense, commands, advises or encourages another person to commit that offense shall, if the offense is committed in consequence thereof, be deemed to have counselled and procured the commission of the offense."

Innocent Agency

In some cases, an individual may unwittingly become involved in the commission of a crime due to the actions of another person. This is known as innocent agency. If someone is used as a tool or instrument by the principal offender without their knowledge or consent, they are not considered liable for the offence as seen in the case of R v. Amadi (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 911) 215 and R v. Nasamu (1947), where it was held that an innocent person who is used as an instrument for committing a crime cannot be held liable.

Invalid Consideration

In criminal law, consideration refers to something of value exchanged in a contract or agreement. If the consideration for committing an offence is invalid or unlawful, it does not excuse the commission of the crime. Even if a person is promised something in return for their participation in criminal activity, they can still be held liable for their actions as seen in the case of R v. Anyaoha (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1304) 1 and R v. Makanjuola (1963), where the court held that the invalidity of consideration does not absolve the aider and abettor from liability.

Minor Variation

Minor variation refers to situations where the primary offender deviates slightly from the intended crime. In such cases, the aider and abettor may still be held liable if the variation does not constitute a substantial departure from the agreed plan. This principle was highlighted in the case of R v. Bello (1964), where the court held that minor variations do not break the chain of counseling or procuring.

Break in the Chain of Counseling or Procuring:

A break in the chain of counseling or procuring

This occurs when there is a significant interruption or deviation from the original plan to commit the crime. If such a break occurs, the aider and abettor may not be held liable for subsequent offenses committed by the primary offender. This concept was discussed in the Nigerian case of R v. Adeleke (1971), where the court emphasized that a break in the chain of counseling or procuring relieves the aider and abettor from liability for further offenses beyond the break.