BOLAJI ORENO v. THE STATE
(2014)LCN/7149(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 29th day of April, 2014
CA/B/311C/2013
RATIO
WHETHER MURDER IS PROVED ONCE INTENTION TO CAUSE CAUSE GREVIOUS BODILY HARM IS PROVED
I am of the view that the intention to cause grievous bodily harm to someone was premeditated on the part of the appellant. Murder is proved if intention to cause only grievous bodily harm is proved. See Adebiyi Famakinwa v. The State (2012) LPELR-9748 (CA) where Iyizoba, JCA held:
“Section 316 of the Criminal Code which defines the offence of murder provides: ‘316. except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say (1) If the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed, or that of some other person; (2) If the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous harm; is guilty of murder. In the second case it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person, who is killed”. Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.
CRIMINAL LAW: INGREDIENTS OF THE DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION
Was the appellant provoked? What are the ingredients of the defence of provocation? The following are the ingredients of provocation:
(a) The act relied upon by the accused must be obviously provocative.
(b) The provocative act must be one that can and did deprive the accused of self control.
(c) The provocative act must have emanated from the deceased
(d) The accused must have reacted to the deceased’s act without allowing his passion to cool.
(e) The force used by the accused in retaliating must not be disproportionate to the act reacted against.
See Edoho v. State (2010) 14 NWLR pt 1214 pg 651, Uwagboe v. State (supra).
Annabi v state (2008) 13 NWLR pt 1103 pg 179. Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.
CRIMINAL LAW: ELEMENTS TO BE PROVEN TO ESTABLISH MURDER
Let us first unknot the question of murder. The prosecution in a charge of murder is under the duty to prove the following:
(a) That the deceased is dead
(b) That the death of the deceased was caused by the accused
(c) That accused person’s act or omission that caused the death of the deceased was intentional and done with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was the probable consequence. Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
BOLAJI ORENO Appellant(s)
AND
THE STATE Respondent(s)
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Delta State delivered by Hon. Justice M. Umukoro on 9/07/2012, wherein His Lordship convicted the appellant for murder and sentenced him to death by hanging. Below are the facts that led to this appeal:
The appellant- Bolaji Oreno was a regular customer to PW 2- Emmanuela Adorah. PW2 swore that on 11/12/2009, she left her groceries shop at No 3 Olu Palace Road, Warri with a small girl and went to the Bank. PW2 swore that she took stock of the things in her shop and headed for UBA off Airport Road, Warri. About ten minutes later, she returned from the bank and discovered that the purse containing recharge cards, her ATM card and her wallet were missing. She enquired from the girl she left in the shop and the girl told her it was one “bros” that took it. She then headed to a native doctor’s at Agbarho, Sapele who pointed the appellant as the thief.
On the same day, PW2 saw the appellant and accused him of stealing the lost items. The appellant insisted that he did not steal anything. At about 8.30pm, the appellant went to PW2’s house and demanded that she take him to the diviner that suspected him of stealing her items. She said it was late and that she would take him to the diviner the next day and he left. She thereafter left her house to go to Rev. Agboire’s house to spend the night.
On 12/12/2009, at about 6:00 am, the appellant went to the said Rev. Agboire’s house with his mother and demanded that he be allowed to see PW2. PW4 swore that the appellant tried to enter his premise forcefully to go and meet PW2 inside the house. The appellant violently banged the iron protectors at the entrance to the Pastors’ apartment continuously. The deceased, PW4 and PW3 tried to stop the appellant from getting in. The Appellant was reported to have said if they did not allow him see PW2, “Blood will flow. Somebody will die”. In the process of trying to get forceful entry into the house, the deceased tried to restrain the appellant and a scuffle ensued between the two. PW2, PW3 and PW4 swore that in the course of the scuffle, the appellant stabbed the deceased. The deceased was reported to have suddenly fell on the ground with blood gushing out of his neck and chest. The appellant fled. The deceased was rushed to the General Hospital where he was confirmed dead on arrival.
Appellant was charged for the murder of the deceased before the High Court of Justice holden at Warri. The prosecution called five witnesses thus:
PW1- Abraham Solomon, Pastor in Fire Generation Ministry, Kpeghe Bakery, Warri.
PW2- Emmanuella Adorah- complainant who accused the appellant of stealing her items PW3- Rev. Micheal Agboire- elder brother to the deceased.
PW4- Woman Inspector Amatsowa Irorere- the Investigating Police Officer.
PW5- Nwachokor Francis-Consultant pathologist at Central Hospital Warri.
The appellant testified in his own defence and called no witness.
The appellant raised the defences of provocation, self defence, intoxication and insanity at the lower court. Umukoro.l. in a judgment delivered on 09/07/2012, found the appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to death by hanging.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed a notice of appeal on 18/06/2013 and his brief on 7/08/20113. The respondent filed its brief of argument on 30/09/2013.
In the brief settled by Ayo Asala Esq., the appellant raised one issue for determination as follows:
Whether having regard to the evidence on the record especially the defence of self defence and provocation, and the circumstances of this case, was the learned trial judge right when he held that the prosecution proved the one count charge of murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
The respondent in the brief settled by Martins A. Omakor raised two issues for determination as follows:
1. Was the learned trial judge right when he held that the prosecution proved the one count charge of murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the defences of provocation and/self-defence are available to the appellant in this case.
The appellant’s issue is encompassing and I shall adopt it in the determination of this appeal.
SOLE ISSUE
Whether having regard to the evidence on the record especially the defence of self defence and provocation, and the circumstances of this case, was the learned trial judge right when he held that the prosecution proved the one count charge of murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Ayo Asala for the appellant on this issue submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel listed the ingredients of the offence of murder and cited Mbang v. State (2007) All FWLR pt 372 pg. 1863, Uwagboe v. State (2008) All FWLR Pt. 419 Pg. 425 and Yaki v. State (2008) All FWLR Pt.440 Pg. 618.
On provocation, counsel defined what amounts to provocation and cited R v. Afonia (1965) 15 WACA 26; Ahmed v. State (1999) 7 NWLR Pt. 612 Pg. 641; Lado v. State (1999) 9 NWLR Pt.619 Pg.369. Counsel listed the ingredients of the defence of provocation and argued that the Court in deciding whether provocation avails an accused must be objective. Counsel cited Rex v. Okoro (1942) 16 NLR 63; Lado v. State (Supra).
On self defence, appellant’s counsel argued that the defence of self was properly raised by the appellant. Counsel cited R v. Deana (1909) 2 Cr. App. 75 and further argued that an examination of the appellant’s extra judicial statement marked “Exhibit D” show that the defence should be held available to him.
Martins A. Omakor for the respondent on this issue submitted that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as required by law and not beyond all manner of doubt. Counsel cited Ogunzee v. State (1998)58 LRCN Pg. 3512 at 3551; Bakare v. State (1957) 1 NWLR Pt. 52 Pg.579, Edamine v. State (1996) 3 NWLR pt. 38 pg. 530 at 531. Counsel listed the ingredients of murder and cited Edwin Ogba v. State (1992) 2 NWLR Pt.222 Pg. 164, Nwosu v. State (1986) 4 NWLR pt. 35 pg. 384 Yaki v. State (2008) ALL FWLR Pt. 440 Pg.618. Counsel in restating the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 submitted on the first ingredient of murder that it is settled that the deceased was dead. Respondent’s counsel on whether the act of the appellant caused the death of the deceased, argued that the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 at pages 60, 63, 66, 68 and 71 of the record respectively, showed that the appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife.
Counsel further argued that the statement of the appellant to the Police marked “Exhibit D” revealed the state of affairs when the incidence was still fresh in the appellant’s memory and lead credence to the argument that the appellant stabbed the deceased. Counsel on the third ingredient of murder argued that the appellant intentionally killed the deceased. Counsel referred to excerpts from Exhibit D and the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 at pages 60, 62 and 65 of the record. Counsel argued that the act of the appellant was premeditated as shown by the record.
Counsel further argued that mens rea in a murder charge is no longer of moment, necessary or relevant and cited Nworie v. Nwali v. State (1991) 3 NWLR Pt. 182 Pg. 663 at 674-675.
Learned respondent’s counsel submitted that none of the defences of provocation and self-defence was available to the appellant. Counsel defined provocation and cited Ihuebuka v. State (2001) Vol. 2 ACLR Pg. 183 at 203-204; Ogbolu v. State (1987) 2 NWLR Pt.54 Pg.20 at 33; Jideonwo v. State (1997) 1 NWLR Pt.480 Pg. 209 at 219. Counsel argued that assuming the allegation of theft made against the appellant on the 11/12/2009 was provocative; the 24-hour span between that day and the next day, 12/12/2009 was enough time for the appellant’s passion to have cooled. Counsel then submitted that the appellant did not act in the heat of passion.
Counsel further argued that the words of PW1, PW3 and the deceased did not amount to provocation as words alone and mere anger cannot amount to provocation. Counsel cited Reg v. Sherwood 174 ER 936 and Ihuebuka v. State (Supra); Nwanbe v. State (1995) 3 SCNJ 77 at 93; Nkemchor v. State (1985) 5 SC 1.
Counsel listed the requirements for the defence of self defence and cited Omoregie v. State (2008) 12 SC Pt II Pg 80 at 91. Counsel argued that assuming but without conceding that there was a fight between the deceased, PW1, PW3 and the appellant, there was nothing on record to show that the appellant was attacked with any offensive weapon. Counsel further argued that the appellant had enough time to call other persons to defend him but he never did and chose to stab the deceased with a knife. Counsel cited Monday Odu v. State (2001) FWLR Pt. 64 Pg. 271 at 277.
Counsel argued that there was unchallenged evidence from PW1, PW2 and PW3 that the appellant’s mother was at the scene of the incident and that the statement of the appellant “Exhibit D” corroborated that fact showing that the appellant’s life was not in danger and that he was clearly on a revenge mission.
Let us first unknot the question of murder. The prosecution in a charge of murder is under the duty to prove the following:
(a) That the deceased is dead
(b) That the death of the deceased was caused by the accused
(c) That accused person’s act or omission that caused the death of the deceased was intentional and done with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was the probable consequence.
It is settled from the evidence of both parties and the record that the deceased is dead and that the appellant caused his death. PW1 in his evidence at page 60 of the record stated on oath that:
“When Rev. Mike succeeded in separating two of us, the accused left me and attacked pastor Efe. He stabbed him immediately Pastor Efe opened the gate and told the accused that he should not disturb us but look for the Emmanuela Adorah someone else”
PW2 at page the record stated that:
”Pastor Omoiefe was attacked with a knife by the accused. The accused stabbed him twice on the neck and chest….At the hospital, the doctor confirmed Pastor Omoiefe Agboire dead”
PW3 at page the record said:
”I knew the accused until the day he stabbed my late younger brother”
PW5 at page 70 of the record stated that:
“On 22/12/09 I was on duty at the above hospital I had course to be invited by the police in “A” Division Nigeria Police Warri through one Sgt. Amasona Irorere to carry out an autopsy on the body of the said Pastor Agboire Omoiefe that was deposited in the hospital morgue on 12/12/09″
The appellant himself in his statement to the Police marked Exhibit D at page 130 of the record said:
“It was in the process of fighting me I brought out a (kich) kitchen knife which I was hiding in my trouser pocket and use it to stab one of them”
From the foregoing, I am of the humble view that the prosecution discharged the burden of proof on the first and second ingredients of murder. On the third ingredient of murder, let us go back to the record. PW1 at page 60 of the record said:
“The accused said somebody must die if Emmanuela Adorah does not come out. That blood must be shed”
PW2 at page 62 of the record said:
“The accused came straight to my own flat, hitting the iron protector so hard that made one of my sisters come out. He said I should be provided or brought out or else blood shall flow”
PW3 at page 65 of the record said:
“The accused was shaking and hitting the iron protectors saying the 2PW should be brought out. The accused repeatedly said that either he kills himself or somebody will die”
Although the appellant in his evidence on oath at page 73 of the record stated that:
“I shook the gate threatening that the 2PW should come out. After shaking the gates again, two men came out, held me, fling me about. One of them blew me on the top of my right eye. The two men began to fight me…All of a sudden I was on the ground, gbim. All my face, all my mouth were blown. I was trying to find my way out. I saw an iron on the ground. I picked up same started waiving same to clear my way in order to run away. I vex well well o, well well. I saw blood on my hand, my left hand. When I saw everywhere was clear I ran away”
Appellant in the statement made to the Police few days after the incidence marked Exhibit D at page 1-30 of the record stated that:
“In the process I over heard somebody speaking from inside the house that they should not fight me, it was in the process of fighting me I brought out a (Kich) kitchen knife which I was holding on my trouser pocket and use it to stab one of them which I did not known his name. I saw blood coming out of him and I ran away.”
Of important note is that Exhibit D was made by the appellant few days after the incidence when the events were still fresh in his memory and that Exhibit D was never challenged in court as not being the statement of the appellant. Thus, it flows reasonably that the averments in Exhibit D are more reliable than those made in Court on oath. The appellant’s evidence on oath quoted above is fraught with breaks in logical chain of the event and thus is unreliable. It was also given over a year after the incidence. The evidence on oath thus amounts to an afterthought. Also from the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and the appellant himself, it is clear that the appellant’s act was done with full intention of its consequences. He had left his house in the morning of that fateful day to take Emmanuela Adaorah’s life or even his own life.
The learned trial fudge, in a well considered judgment held at page 110-111 of the record that:
“The 1PW, 2PW and 3PW corroborated by the 4PW and 5PW singing the same song, dishing out the same music straight to the effect that it was the accused who stabbed the deceased. The 1PW and 2PW saw the accused stab the deceased. The 3PW saw the accused stabbed the deceased…in the assessment of the prosecution’s case, it is abundantly clear and I am convinced that the accused acts negatively impacted on the life of Pastor Omojefe Agboire. I believe the 1PW, 2PW, 3PW, 4PW and 6PW that the death of the deceased-Pastor Omojefe Agboire was the direct result of the application of sharp object on the body of Pastor Omoiefe Agboire.”
I must address the contention of the learned respondent’s counsel that mens rea is no longer of moment in criminal trials. This submission is a grave misconception of the law. A criminal trial is incomplete without the prosecution proving the actus reus and the mens rea of the offence in question. All the defences usually raised by accused persons are done with intent to defeat the mens rea and to prove that the accused did not have the requisite “guilty mind/mens rea” to commit the crime in question. Thus where the mens rea is considered nonexistent, the accused gets respite from the initial ultimate punishment of the crime in question on the basis of lack of proof of mental intention. For example, the defeat of mens rea in a murder case results in acquittal where the accused successfully pleads self defence. In the same vein, murder is reduced to manslaughter in the successful plea of provocation in murder trial where the defence is able to prove that accused had no mens rea to murder the deceased.
Now let us look into the question of self-defence. Could it be said that the appellant acted in defence of self when he stabbed the deceased? The court in Omoregie v. State (Supra) has outlined the requirements for the defence of self defence as:
(a) The accused must be free from fault in bringing about the encounter.
(b) There must be present an impending peril to life or of great bodily harm either real or apparent as to create honest belief of an existing necessity.
(c) There must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat.
(d) There must have been a necessity for taking life.
In the instant case, can we say the appellant was free from fault in bringing about the encounter between himself and the deceased? Let us glance at the decision of the trial court on this issue. The trial court at page 113 of the record held that:
“Quickly I regard the plea of self defence as an afterthought because it was the accused who voluntarily left his house to the scene of the crime at 6:00 a.m. when he ought to have woken up from his bed to pray for the day. Instead he left for the house of the deceased, banged on their protectors and was told to go away. He refused. His own mother even came to appeal to him to leave. He was at no time threatened by anyone. The accused brought about the encounter himself. Infact this was a self-induced encounter by the accused”
Was there an impending peril to the appellant’s life? I do not think so. I am of the view that even though the Pastors restrained the appellant from entering the house, there was no overt act aimed at putting the appellant’s life in danger. Assuming but without conceding that the appellant felt his life was in danger, there was a reasonable mode of retreat for him. The gate through which the appellant initially entered the compound and subsequently fled after stabbing the deceased could have been used as an exit even if he felt he was endangered. Was there a necessity for the appellant taking the deceased’s life? I think not. Even though the appellant claimed to have been dealt a blow by one of the Pastors, is stabbing with knife a proportionate reaction to a blow? I do not think so. The appellant and the Pastors involved were young men and he could have retaliated with another blow. The appellant’s retaliation was simply disproportionate.
From the foregoing, I am in agreement with the learned trial judge that the defence of self defence cannot be available to the appellant in the circumstances of this case.
Was the appellant provoked? What are the ingredients of the defence of provocation? The following are the ingredients of provocation:
(a) The act relied upon by the accused must be obviously provocative.
(b) The provocative act must be one that can and did deprive the accused of self control.
(c) The provocative act must have emanated from the deceased
(d) The accused must have reacted to the deceased’s act without allowing his passion to cool.
(e) The force used by the accused in retaliating must not be disproportionate to the act reacted against.
See Edoho v. State (2010) 14 NWLR pt 1214 pg 651, Uwagboe v. State (supra).
Annabi v state (2008) 13 NWLR pt 1103 pg 179.
Let us have it in mind that the events that led to this appeal spanned between 09/12/2009 and 10/12/2009.
There is no doubt from that the allegation of theft against the appellant on 9th December was provocative. Any reasonable person when accused of stealing without concrete evidence to back up such allegation will be provoked. The appellant in his evidence on oath at page 72 of the record stated that:
“At about 8:00 pm the 2PW came and invited me to say that a native doctor in Agbarho revealed that I was the thief who stole her recharge cards and money. I vex well well and the whole area gathered. Since I was born nobody has ever accused me of theft. I was even crying that day. People thought that my mother died. I told 2PW to take me to the native doctor to confirm the allegation that I was the thief. I was not able to control myself. I was shouting.”
In Exhibit D at page 128-129 of the record, appellant stated that:
“She said that the native doctor told her that I am the one who stole the money and recharge cards. Emmanuela told me that her thirteen thousand naira cash was stolen and the recharge cards which she did not told me the amount. (she was talking) when I was talking with loud voice. She said I should low my voice down, after that she went home and I followed her immediately to her house so that we can go back to the native doctor place at Agbarho and confirmed if I am the one who stole her money and recharge cards ….people around came out and started to beg me so that I can go home”
However, did the events of 10th December 2009 provoke the appellant? At page 73 of the record, the appellant narrating what happened that fateful day on oath stated that:
“I knocked at the iron protector. They refused to open. I was told that if I did not leave, I would be beaten up. I was surprised and HEATED UP to be beaten up upon the lies hinged on me”
Appellant stated in Exhibit D at page 129 of the record that:
While I was in pastor’s gate my mother came and started to hold me so that I can go home but I refused and I continued to hit the gate and said that the pastor should bring Emmanuela out from their house. They replied me from inside that if I refused to live their gate, they will come out and beat me, later two pastors whose names are unknown to me came and open the gate and started to fight me.”
The trial judge at page 112 of the record on provocation held that:
“Remember that on the 11th December 2009, the accused was appealed to by the 3PW and others to allow the sleeping dogs lie. He agreed. He went to bed. Very early the next day at 6:00 am the accused armed with a knife, he proceeded to the residence where the deceased stays with a view to getting at the 2PW Emmanuela Adaorah. What provocation was held out to the accused that made him lose his self control. In my view, it was the accused who provoked the 1PW and 3PW and the deceased by going to their house to cerelessly bang on the iron protectors when the accused knows fully well that that is not the residence of the 2PW Emmanuela Adorah. It was not the deceased who called the accused a thief. It was not the 1PW that called the accused thief either”
From the perusal of the records on what transpired on 10th December, I am of the humble opinion that the appellant was not provoked. Rather, he was the one that provoked the deceased and the other Pastors. How can someone wake up as early as 6:00 a.m, go to another man’s house to constitute nuisance at such an early time of the day and claim to be provoked? It is true that PW2 promised to take the appellant to the native doctor that day but the fact remains that the day had just begun and they still had enough time to go. In addition, PW2 was not in her own house, a fact that the appellant should have respected and left honourably when he was asked to leave. His continuous banging of the gate amounted to nuisance and provoked the owners of the house. The appellant’s claim to provocation in this case is absurd and unfounded.
I am aware that from the evidence of the Appellant and all the prosecution witnesses, the deceased was actually to the appellant. However, the law only requires to ground a charge of murder the fact that the appellant intended to cause the natural consequences of his action. Carrying a knife about early in the morning to go and engage in a quarrel means nothing but that the appellant left his house with intention to cause grievous bodily harm to someone. This inference is supported by his own averments that blood would flow.
At page 130 of the record the appellant stated as follows:
“The reason while I went to Emmanuella house with the knife was that if I cannot found out the truth from her I will killed myself or killed her and that is why I went their with the knife.”
I am of the view that the intention to cause grievous bodily harm to someone was premeditated on the part of the appellant. Murder is proved if intention to cause only grievous bodily harm is proved. See Adebiyi Famakinwa v. The State (2012) LPELR-9748 (CA) where Iyizoba, JCA held:
“Section 316 of the Criminal Code which defines the offence of murder provides: ‘316. except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say (1) If the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed, or that of some other person; (2) If the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous harm; is guilty of murder. In the second case it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person, who is killed”
I am of the humble view that from the deluge of evidence above, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the charge of murder against the appellant. This is so having in mind that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not imply proof beyond all manner of doubt. In Moses v. State (2010) 43 WRN 1 at 24-25, Niki Tobi JSC held that:
“While our adjectival law places on the prosecution the duty to prove a case beyond any reasonable doubt, the prosecution has not the duty to prove the case beyond all shadow of doubt. The court can convict an accused person the moment the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt”
In light of all the issues adumbrated above, I am of the humble opinion that the prosecution proved the charge of murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and that the defences of self defence and provocation cannot avail the appellant in this case.
The judgment of Hon. Justice Umukoro of the Delta State High Court delivered on 09/07/2012 is hereby affirmed including the sentence passed on the appellant. This appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the lead Judgment prepared by my learned brother, HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JCA. His lordship has painstakingly and incisively too, dealt with all aspects of the sole issue for determination in the appeal and I cannot but say that I am in complete agreement with the exposition of the law, reasoning and conclusions in the lead Judgment to the extent that I have nothing useful to add thereto.
Accordingly, I too, find the instant appeal to be unmeritorious and dismiss the same. The judgment of the lower court delivered on 9/7/2012 is hereby affirmed in its entirety.
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading the draft of the judgment prepared and just delivered by my Lord, HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JCA, who characteristically dealt with and resolved the issues thrown up in this appeal, admirably to my full satisfaction.
For a blood thirsty man to set out with a knife hidden in his trouser pocket, looking for a woman who allegedly called him a thief on a previous day, to stab another person which led the death of the latter, I do not think of any fathomable excuse to exculpate him from taking responsibility for killing the harmless and unarmed pastor Omojefe Agboire.
The fate of the appellant is no less than that of a person who kills by the sword who himself must die by the sword. In other words, the inglorious killing of Pastor Omojefe Agboire by the appellant, leads to the inglorious killing of the appellant who has a date to keep with the hangman. He has to wait for the hangman’s noose, accordingly.
Therefore, I am in total agreement with the reasoning and conclusion contained in the lead judgment that this appeal is bereft of merits. I also dismiss it. I affirm the conviction and sentence of death by hanging on the appellant, as decreed by M. Umukoro, J., on 9th July, 2012.
Appearances
Ayo Asala with him, A.E. Alagun and Ovhumuache SmartFor Appellant
AND
Martins A. Omakor Assistant Director DPP Delta State with him, Y.A. Onwochei (Mrs) SSCFor Respondent
