MAIJAMAA V. THE STATE

• Pages: 155-157

UPETIRE V. A.G. WESTERN NIGERIA



145

ness has been cross-examined about the statements. Section 198 is to the like ef-

fect.

The statement now under considera) ion did not go merely to the character of

the witness, but to the facts in issue in the present case, and a witness' evidence

5



on the facts in issue is always liable to be contradicted. The Judge was right in

not allowing the statement to be produced when it was first tendered, since Jimoh

Atanda had not been cross-examined on it, but after permitting Jimoh Atanda to

be recalled and cross-examined on the statement he was in error in not receiving

the statement in evidence, unless he was prepared to say at once that he accepted

10



Jimoh Atanda's denial and disbelieved the police officer, which is not the ground

on which he excluded the statement. Since the whole case for the prosecution

depended on the credibility of Jimoh Atanda the error cannot be regarded as any-

thing but a serious one.

For the avoidance of doubt we would acid that while the judgement in

R.

v.

15



Akanni

is to be read subject to what is said above as regards the admissibility of

a previous statement made by a witness, it needs no qualification as regards the

use to which such a statement may be put when it has been admitted. Special

rules apply to a confession made by an accused person whether he gives evi-

dence or not, and these were discussed in

R. v. Itule

[1961] All N.L.R. 462, but in

20



a criminal case a previous statement made by an ordinary witness is admissible

only as affecting the credibility of his evidence and not as proof of the truth of what

it says.

25

UPETIRE V. A.G. WESTERN NIGERIA

30 PHILLIP UPETIRE



APPELLANT

V

ATTORNEY-GENERAL



RESPONDENT

WESTERN NIGERIA

SUIT NO. FSC 156/1964

35 SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



J.S.C.

TAYLOR,



J.S.C.

BAIRAMIAN,



J.S.C.

12th June, 1964.

40

Legislation - Western Nigeria - Criminal Code, s.26.

Criminal Law - Insanity - Incapacity to control one's action - Ailment of geroderm

- Conduct of defendant showing calculation, and killing in revenge.

45

ISSUE:

1. Can an accused person who killed in revenge and with calculation, successfully

plead insanity as a defence.

FACTS:

50



The defendant killed two children of a mother with whom he lived. He asked

her for money, but she said she had none to spare. Next day he followed the child-

ren who had left for the farm, and killed them; claiming that he did so because

their mother refused to show him where she kept the money she made out of him

by juju. His defence was insanity, relying on medical evidence that he suffered