OKPERE V. THE STATE

• Pages: 1-5

OKPERE V. THE STATE

OKPERE V. THE STATE

ANTHOR OKPERE

V

10

THE STATE

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 85/1970

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,

C.J.N.

COKER,

J.S.C.

1

5

MADARIKAN,

J.S.C.

8th January, 1971.

Χριµιναλ Λαω − Ηοµιχιδε − Μυρδερ − ∆εατη ρεσυλτινγ ι

ρο ν ελατιον

ε χουιν

ρσε

α

ηισ σ

οφ

φι

υµµ

γητιν −

∆υτψ οφ τριαλ ϑυδγε το χονσιδερ σελφ δεφενχε ορ π

γ

20

υπ το ϕυρψ − Αχχυσεδ τελλινγ λιεσ.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether the fact that an accused tells lies is sufficient by itself to convict him of

an offence not connected with mendacity, and relieves the prosecution of the

25

onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

2.

Whether the circumstances under which the offence was committed are relevant

in a murder trial.

3.

Whether an accused can still be convicted of murder, once provocation has

been established.

an issue of

30

4. Whether improper direction of the jury on

provocation, is sufficient

to reduce conviction for murder to one for manslaughter.

FACTS:

The Appellant was charged and tried for murder. The accused and the de-

ceased had been fighting, and the deceased died as

inst the

a resultconvict

of the fi

io

n.

ght. The ac-

35

cused was convicted of murder. He appealed aga

HELD:

1.

It has never been the law that the mere fact that a person told lies is by itself

sufficient to convict him of an offence unconnected with mendacity nor does

the fact that an accused person has told lies relieve the prosecution of its duty

40

of proving the guilt of the accused of the offence charged beyond all reasonable

doubt.

2.

It is generally agreed that motive is irrelevant in a case of murder but it not

infrequently happens that the evidence relied upon to ground the inference of

a murderous intent will itself show circumstances which negative that intent. A

45

man striking in self-defence may intend the dangerous if not fatal consequences

of his act. The circumstances under which he decides to do that which he did

are extremely relevant in the consideration of his guilt or otherwise.

3.

In a similar way section 318 of the Criminal Code speaks of the ameliorating

effect of provocation. In the course of a fight it is evident that occasions may

50

arise either for self-defence or for ventilation of sudden and contemporaneous

provocation and it is settled that where provocation of the type envisaged by

titer

section 318 of the Criminal Code is established, the offence is manslaug

and not murder.