The Defense Of Plea Of Insanity Under Nigerian Criminal Law

Description

 

1.1   Background of the study

It is the duty of the government of a state to protect the lives and properties of persons living in the state. One of the ways by which the governments achieve this objective is by enacting laws which will regulate the conduct of the persons living in such state. Certain acts and omissions are prohibited under the laws of the land. These conducts could be termed ‘an offence’ but it is the statutes books that determine what constitute an offence. Section 2 of the Criminal Code[1] defines an offence as an act or omission which renders the person doing the act or making the omission liable to punishment under the code, or under any Act, or Law. The law however takes cognizance of the situation when a person who does an act or makes an omission which constitute and offence will not be held responsible for his action or inaction. This happens when the actor of the offence has been able to prove to the satisfaction of the court that even though he did the act or made the omission, he nevertheless should not be found guilty because he did the act or made the omission while he was under a certain belief which in fact does not exist or he did not possess the requisite mental capacity for committing an offence. In other words, the actor of the offence has been able to raise a defence to his criminal charge. One of such defences which the actor could rely on is the defence of insanity. The insanity defence has long been codified in our statutes books and the extent which the defence could be used as a defence to a criminal charge is the bone of this paper.

Insanity has been defined as the unsoundness of mind, mental disease giving rise to a defect of reason which renders a person not responsible in law for his actions.[2] Also, insanity was defined as an aberration of mind. Insanity may be used interchangeably with alienation of mind, amentia, brain damage, craziness, daftness, delirium, delusion, dementedness etc.[3] Insanity is any mental disorder severe enough that it prevents a person from having legal capacity and excuses the person from criminal or civil responsibility.[4] According to an online source, insanity is a mental illness of such a nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct his/her affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncomfortable impulsive behaviour.[5]

In consideration of all the above definitions ascribed to insanity, it is safe to conclude that insanity is a disease of the mind which is capable of disturbing the mind of the person to the extent that the he loses control of the power to distinguish between wrong and right and which excuses the person from any civil or criminal liability.

Insanity and insane delusions are some of the defences created by the Nigerian Criminal Code. Insanity particularly presupposes that the defendant committed the said offence; however by virtue of an incapability occasioned by the insanity; the defendant was not in control of his senses as at the time he committed the offence. It is possible that after committing the offence the defendant regained his senses. The defence of insanity is concerned not with the state of mind of the defendant before or after committing the offence but with his/her state of mind as at the time the offence was committed. It is this plea of insanity and its accompanying defence of insane delusion that this paper seeks to explore

1.2 Problem statement

In Nigeria, every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty.[6] The constitutional implication of this is that in any criminal case, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person which he has alleged and not for the accused to prove his innocence. One would be tempted to therefore ask if the provision of the Evidence Act requiring the accused person to prove the defence of insanity is not placing the evidential burden on the accused, that is, requiring the accused to prove his innocence. The answer to this question is an outright ‘NO’. The proviso to the Nigerian constitution on the right to be presumed innocent is to the effect that nothing in the section shall invalidate any law by reason only that the law imposes upon any such person the burden of proving particular facts. The Evidence Act merely imposes upon an accused person relying on the defence of insanity the burden of proving the existence of the insanity defence as at the time of the commission of the offence. Conclusively, the right to the presumption of innocence guaranteed under the Nigerian constitution is not trampled upon by the Evidence Act which places the burden of proving insanity on the accused person alleging the mental disease.

At this point, it is only imperative to consider the constitutional safeguards of the rights of an accused person relying on the defence of insanity vis a vis his right to the presumption of innocence. This paper is however concerned with insanity during the commission of the offence. In Nigeria, the defence of insanity is provided for in the Criminal and Penal Codes operating in the Southern and Northern states respectively.

1.3 Scope of the study

The scope of this work under Nigerian context addresses the insanity plea provisions of section 28 of the Criminal Code Act will be provided. The section states as follows: “A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time doing the act or making the omission he is in such state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity as to deprive him of the capacity to understand what he is doing, or of capacity to control his actions, or of capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission”. It is germane to note that there have been arguments to the effect that mental disease could be given a narrow interpretation not covering conditions such as mental defect or deficiency (i.e. intellectual disability). Thus, the Nigerian code in inserting the alternative phrase of ‘natural mental infirmity’ could represent an attempt at providing a broad and fair view of insanity.

1.4 justifications

Section 28 of the Criminal Code[7] provides that A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time of doing the act or making the omission he is in such a state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity as to deprive him of capacity to understand what he is doing, or of capacity to control his actions, or of capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.[8]  It is obvious from this provision that the law provides for the defense of insanity if at the time of doing the act or making the omission, the accused was in such state of mental infirmity n of capacity to know distinguish between a wrong and a right.[9] Whenever the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is raised, the trial court has the burden to determine whether the alleged offence was indeed committed; whether the accused committed the offence and; whether the accused was insane at the time of committing the offence.[10] In the northern states of Nigeria, the Penal Code takes the place of the Criminal code. Section 51 of the Penal Code provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.[11]Insanity defense is a type of defense where the person who is charged with an offense would admit that he committed a crime, but would claim that he is not responsible for it due to mental illness. Simply put, he would be found not guilty by reason of being insane. But given its privileges and coverage, this way of defense has become one of the hottest legal topics in debates around the world.

This study will serve as a means of have a good idea of the advantages of the plea of insanity under Nigerian criminal law such as: How plea of insanity under Nigerian criminal law creates an instant atmosphere of guilt –
For an insanity defense to work, the defense party should admit that the crime did happen, but the defendant actually did not commit it. So, rather than trying to dispute the facts, the goal is to find the defendant as being innocent because his mental state. Due to the fact that many societies do not want to give punishments to people who do not genuinely know what is right from wrong, the trial’s evaluation would becomes more about an individual’s state of mind, rather than the actual case facts where harm was caused.

How plea of insanity under Nigerian criminal law does not allow death penalty – One huge advantage of insanity defense is that the accused could avoid penalized with death, even if he were proven guilty. In the context of crime, the sentence can be very lenient as compared with an accused who is proven to be guilty, but is not proven insane.

Plea of insanity under Nigerian criminal law can save a life –
If a person really does have mental incapacity, and it will be considered that his condition has caused him to commit a capital crime, which means the defense could save his life. Put in mind that a capital crime carries a punishment of eventual death. However, being found not guilty because of insanity means that a capital punishment is out of the question. It could mean that the accused would just be housed at a professional mental health treatment center. Though it might not be jail, still it gets him off the streets.

Plea of insanity under Nigerian criminal law charges lenient sentencing -Simply by the virtue of insanity, a person can get some respite from the court. While he will be declared medically and criminally insane, he would not be tried under the same circumstances as an accused individual who is in his right mind. These two reasons are the primary bases why insanity pleas are used in cases where they are applicable.

Plea of insanity under Nigerian criminal law lead to a no-jail term or possible acquittal – In some cases, people who are accused of crimes can avoid being imprisoned if proven insane. Though the chance of acquittal has become slimmer over the years, it is still possible that a person might get some reprieve. It is likely that he would be sent to a psychiatric facility and may even be set free after staying there. However, it is not guaranteed that an accused would be entirely acquitted.

1.5 Aims and Objectives

The aim of this study is to explore plea of insanity under Nigerian criminal law and its accompanying defence of insane delusion. This study seeks to:

1. Addresses the insanity plea provisions of section 28 of the Nigerian Criminal law
2. Provide conceptual clarifications with a view to explaining the concepts and discussing the elements of the defenses seriatim.

• Review the effect of plea of insanity in our society.

1. Make recommendations among others to include amendment of the laws in line with current approach to the subject-matter.

1.6 Research Methodology

In the course of carrying this study, numerous sources were used which most of them are by visiting libraries, consulting journal and online research which Google was the major source that was used.

PROJECT ORGANISATION

The work is organized as follows: chapter one discuses the introductory part of the work,   chapter two presents the literature review of the study,  chapter three describes the methods applied, chapter four discusses the results of the work, chapter five summarizes the research outcomes and the recommendations.

[1] The Criminal Code Act, Cap 38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

[2] Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary, Tenth Edition, Edited by Mick Woodley.

[3] Burton’s Legal Thesarus, Tenth Edition, Edited by William C. Burton.

[4] Black’s Law Dictionary, Deluxe Tenth Edition, Edited by Bryan A. Garner.

[5] Meaning of Insanity, available at http://www.psychologytoday.com/int/blog/in-therapy/200907/the-definition-insanity-is, accessed August 20, 2020.

[6] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As altered) 1999, s. 36 (5).

[7] Criminal Code Act.

[8] Ibid, Section 28.

[9] Ezediufu v The State, (2001) 17 NWLR (pt 741) 82.

[10] Chris Chizindu Wigwe, supra note 17 at 190.

[11] Penal Code Act.