OKPARA V I G P

• Pages: 13-19

OKPARA V. I.G.P.



13

their verdict they were reminded of what might have been considered grounds for

doubting the evidence given by the witnesses; they deliberated for an hour and

thirty-five minutes before arriving at their unanimous verdict of guilt. We do not

feel able to say that the verdict is unwarranted or unreasonable or is a verdict which

5



cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, and the appeal must be dis-

missed.

Before concluding, we would call attention to an error in the procedure adopted

when the other accused person was found to have no case to answer. The Jury

Ordinance does not lay down what is to be done in such a case, and what the

10



learned Judge did was to withdraw the case from the Jury and himself discharge

the accused. We consider that under section 363 of the Criminal Procedure Or-

dinance he should have followed the practice of the High Court in England. There,

a person once given in charge to a Jury can only be acquitted or convicted by the

Jury:

R.

v.

Heyes

(1951) 1 K.B. 29; and the correct course would have been to di-

15



rest the Jury, as a matter of law, that they must bring in a verdict of Not Guilty. The

error did not in any way prejudice the present appellant, but we mention it by way

of guidance for the future.

Appeal dismissed.

20

OKPARA V. I.G.P.

25

GODFREY OKPARA



APPELLANT

V

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 204/1960

30

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

BRETT,



F.J.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

23rd January, 1961.

35

Criminal Law - Assaulting police officer in execution of duty - officer leaving

scene of trouble to bring policemen Assault on officer to inquire reason for

trespass on house.

40



Legislation - Criminal Code, ss.25, 289, 291, 293, 356(2).

ISSUE:

1. Whether the purpose for an assault on a police officer is relevant to a charge

of assaulting a police officer in the lawful execution of his duty.

45

FACTS:

It was the day before an election. Some members of a mob entered the ap-

pellant's house and threw bottles at the Police. An officer and his men entered the

house and took away empty bottles and other things, and brought them to the sta-

tion. Later, the officer with some men went to the house, and, thinking a disturb-

50



ance was likely and that his force was inadequate, boarded a Land Rover, standing

on the tailboard, on his way to bring reinforcement. As the car was slowly going

uphill, the appellant was nearby. Someone shouted, "That is the man who pulled

down your house, go and hold him". The appellant chased the Land Rover, and

pulled the officer down, saying to him "You will not go until you have explained