A Guest Post By
E.S.O. Ogholaja,
Delta State, Nigeria
An African adage says that when a person throws a stone in the open market, the stone may hit his father on the head. The Owerri saga is not only touching but it has raised much dust in the already troubled Nigerian polity as it concerns proving the offence of murder.
While we admire and respect the views of Ehiwe O. Sam on this matter in his article, we cannot agree with him. The fons et origo of our view is rooted in the following reasons:
Firstly, it is our view that it is the offence of murder and not manslaughter that was committed in the Owerri saga. Our position is judicially backed by the case of Uguru V. State (2007) 9 NWLR (pt. 771) at p. 90 where the court held that for the offence of murder to be established, the following elements must be present:
The victim is dead
The death of the victim was caused by the act(s) of the accused person
Death was a probable consequence of the act of the accused person.
A similar decision was reached in Nwosu V. State (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt. 562), Adekunle v. State (2006) 6 NWLR (pt. 534) and a plethora of other cases. Now, juxtaposing the above mentioned elements with the facts enunciated in the Owerri saga, the following conclusion will be arrived at:
The boy is dead judging from pictures and videos available to us and everywhere in the media
It is also an open fact that the boy’s death was caused by the sinister and corrosive bullet oozing from the rustic gun of one of the soldiers employed by Governor Rochas to cleanse the market.
We admit that the third element is legally problematic however; it is our submission that shooting sporadically in an open market constitutes an intention to kill. The proviso to section 24 of the Criminal Code of Nigeria is to the effect that one will be held liable for an offence if the intention (no matter how little it is) is coupled with the physical actions. In the celebrated case of Mancini v. DPP (1942) AC, the court held that the offence of murder is said to have been completed where the cause of death is a probable consequence of the act of the accused person. This case was quoted with approval in the Nigerian case of Iromantu v. State (1964) 1ALL NLR 311. Hence we humbly submit that shooting sporadically in an open market constituted enough intention to kill which acted as causation to the death of the boy. It is on this note that we find it difficult to agree with Ehiwe that manslaughter will be the most appropriate offence to link the Owerri saga.
In conclusion, if not for the immunity enjoyed by the governor, he would have been dancing in the cork tile where a charge of murder is the master of ceremony.
Comments