In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
On Friday, the 4th day of July, 2025
Before Their Lordships
Mohammed Lawal Garba
Adamu Jauro
Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein
Obande Festus Ogbuinya
Abubakar Sadiq Umar
Justices, Supreme Court
SC/897/2014
Between
MAILUMBO ADAMU APPELLANT
And
THE STATE RESPONDENT
(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Abubakar Sadiq Umar, JSC)
Facts
The Appellant was charged before the High Court of Bauchi State, on a lone count of culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the Penal Code Law of Bauchi State. The case of the prosecution was that, the Appellant stabbed one Ibrahim Garba to death. The Respondent called six witnesses in proof of its case, while the Appellant and his son testified in defence as DW1 and DW2 respectively. The Appellant raised the plea of self-defence, alleging that it was the deceased who first hit him with an iron rod three times, and that he only acted in self-defence by stabbing the deceased.
After the conclusion of trial, the trial court delivered its judgement in which it found that the plea of self-defence availed the Appellant and consequently, discharged and acquitted him. Dissatisfied with the finding of the trial court, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal however, held that the plea of self-defence would not avail the Appellant given the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the trial court, and replaced it with a verdict of guilt against the Appellant. Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue for Determination
After considering the issues submitted by the parties in their respective briefs of argument, the Apex Court reformulated the issue for determination as follows:
Whether the Lower Court was right in setting aside the judgement of the trial court, and in convicting the Appellant on the lone count charge of culpable homicide punishable with death preferred against the Appellant?
Arguments
Counsel for the Appellant argued that, the Respondent did not discharge the burden of proof on it beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel argued that the Respondent failed to prove that the death of the deceased was premeditated, thereby failed to establish the requisite mental element (mens rea), as required by law. Counsel contended that the Respondent’s key witnesses – PW1 to PW4 did not witness the stabbing but arrived afterwards, rendering their evidence indirect.
Counsel further argued against PW4’s credibility, on the ground that his testimony was contradictory, and questioned the reliability of the confessional statement of the Respondent, submitting that it was improperly interpreted by a witness who admitted he was not proficient in Hausa. On this footing, Counsel maintained that the Respondent’s case was doubtful, and that the doubt should be resolved in the Appellant’s favour by discharging and acquitting him, relying on OCHIBA v THE STATE (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1277) 663 at 685.
Counsel for the Appellant argued further that the lower court erred by not attaching weight to the Appellant’s evidence, that DW2 found the Appellant’s daughter naked in bed with the deceased in the deceased’s house which the Appellant reported to PW1, and that the deceased later confronted the Appellant, blocked his path and attacked him. Counsel contended that the stabbing was thus, neither planned nor premeditated, but was a response to provocation and an immediate need for self-preservation. Relying on Section 33(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended); Section 59 of the Penal Code, and SAMPSON UWAEKWEGHINYA v THE STATE (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt. 259) 1911 at 1928–1929, Counsel submitted that the Appellant had no opportunity to retreat and was justified in stabbing the deceased, and that the defences raised ought to have been upheld in his favour. The Appellant’s Counsel also argued that the Court of Appeal failed to consider the Respondent’s Notice filed by the Appellant, thereby denying the Appellant fair hearing and occasioning a miscarriage of justice on the Appellant.
In response, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the offence of culpable homicide was proved beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant, as the evidence established that the Appellant stabbed the deceased and that the deceased died shortly thereafter. Counsel referred to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who confirmed the stabbing and the ensuing death, and the Appellant’s admission that he stabbed the deceased, contending that such an act would naturally be expected to result in death. Counsel submitted further that, even if the confessional statement is discountenanced for interpretation issues, the admissions by the Appellant and DW2 are sufficient to sustain a conviction. Counsel relied on AKINYEMI v THE STATE (1999) 5 NWLR PT. 607 PG. 449.
The Respondent’s Counsel also argued that self-defence will avail an accused person, only if he can show that he had reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the means of retaliation is not disproportionate; whereas in the instant case, the Appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of these factors and therefore, the plea of self-defence cannot avail him. In support, Counsel cited OGBA v THE STATE (1999) 3 NWLR (PT. 139) 505 @518. Counsel submitted that there was no credible evidence to support the Appellant’s assertion that the deceased attacked him, was armed, or acted as the initial aggressor. He pointed out that the testimonies of the Appellant and his son (DW2) were inconsistent, and emphasised that the investigating Police officer confirmed that no weapon, whether rod or cutlass, was recovered at the scene, thereby undermining the Appellant’s claim of being assaulted.
Counsel also argued that the Appellant’s Respondent’s Notice filed before the Court of Appeal was duly heard and determined contrary to the Appellant’s claim, and referred to page 123-124 of the Record of Appeal where the Appellant argued the Notice and the Court of Appeal held that, in the absence of any complaint on the trial court’s ruling on the no case submission, the Respondent’s Notice is disregarded for want of merit.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
