Month: July 2023

During my childhood, I used to go out to play with my friends, often returning late in the evening. On one occasion when I arrived home, I was informed that something spoiled at home. When questioned about who was responsible, I quickly exclaimed, “I wasn’t there o!” This particular incident reinforced the joy of playing outside, knowing I couldn’t be accused of being the culprit. I was so sure of myself🤭

Upon commencing my studies in criminal law at the university, I discovered that the familiar phrase from my childhood, “I wasn’t there o,” actually corresponds to a legal defense known as an “alibi.” This week’s article will delve into the fundamental aspects of this defense in criminal law.

Etymologically, the term “alibi” has its origins in Latin. It comes from the Latin phrase “alibi,” which means “elsewhere.” The term is a combination of two Latin words: “alius” (meaning “other” or “else”) and “ibi” (meaning “there”).

It’s a criminal defence which places the accused person, at the time the offence was committed, in a different place other than the place of the crime which therefore makes it impossible for the accused to be the culprit. The defence hinges on the natural principle of life that a person can’t be in two places at the same time.

Alibi is also a radical defence. It’s radical in that unlike every other defence in law where the accused admits that he commits the offence and goes on to provide an explanation to mitigate the punishment, for instance, “he killed him because he slapped him” (provocation), alibi is the only defence where the accused still maintains his position that he didn’t commit the crime at all. This radical nature of the alibi defense arises from its fundamental contradiction to the standard approach of admitting guilt while seeking to justify or lessen the severity of the act committed.

Though this defence is not statutorily provided for, that is, it is not contained in the Criminal Code nor does the Penal Code make provision for it, nevertheless it’s a defence that has gained notoriety due to a plethora of judicial decisions. See the following cases: Yanor v. State (1965) NMLR 337; Smart v State (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1518) 447 SC; Ndidi v State (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1052) 633 S.C etc and a recent 2023 case of State v Aliyu (2023) 6 NWLR (Pt.1881).

Moving on, it’s pertinent to state that the defence of an alibi must be raised timeously preferably during the time of arrest or interrogation as the courts frown on belated alibis. The reason why the courts have insisted that the Police must investigate an alibi given timeously by the defendant is to close all loopholes in a criminal investigation and to avoid a situation in which the wrong person is sent to the gallows as a result of mistaken identity. Ani v. State (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt.1168) 475.

And it is not just enough to say “I was not there“; the accused must go on to provide a detailed particularization of his whereabouts including the specific place he went to, the people in whose company he was and what if anything transpired at the said time and place. By providing detailed particulars, it prevents the police from embarking on wild goose chase.

In Kareem v State (2021) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1806) 503 S.C, the court held that: “An accused person must raise his Alibi at the earliest opportunity, preferably in his extra-judicial statement. He must not be allowed to use Alibi as a trump card to scuttle prosecution. This is to offer the Police an opportunity either to confirm or confute its availability to the accused person.”

As such in Oguno v State, the court rejected the defence of Alibi raised for the first time in trial and in Adeyemi v State, an alibi raised for the first time while in the witness box was also rejected.

Furthermore, it is a settled principle in the criminal justice system of Nigeria, that in all criminal trials, the burden of proof lies solely on the prosecution, which he must prove beyond reasonable doubt. Section 135 of the Evidence Act.

Once a defence of alibi has been promptly and properly put up, the burden is on the prosecution to investigate it and rebut such evidence in order to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The onus on the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt never shifts and there is no onus on the accused to prove the alibi beyond that of introducing the evidence of alibi. Yanor v State. (supra).

The law is that it is in the interest of justice that the police should investigate an alibi and failure to do such may be fatal to the case. Where an alibi is not investigated, it goes to the root of the case of the prosecution because doubt is thrown on the identity of the perpetrator of the crime who may not be the defendant in the dock. Ayan v. State (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1376) 34 S.C.

However, the law also creates an exception which is that where there is positive evidence that places the accused at the screen of the crime, the failure to investigate the Alibi would not be fatal to conviction. In State v Aliyu (Supra), the court held that that “Where the prosecution is able to adduce evidence which positively fixes the accused person to the scene of the crime and which leaves no one in doubt that the accused person was at the scene at the time when the offence was committed, there will be no need to investigate the alibi, as it is logically demolished.”

Finally, the successful plea of this defence will lead to the discharge and acquittal of the accused because alibi is an exculpatory defence.

Thank you for reading❤️. See you next week🙏

The Land Use Act of 1978 categorizes lands within each state into two main types: Urban and Non-Urban land. Lands in urban areas are placed under the management and control of the Governor, as stated in Section 2(a) of the Land Use Act. On the other hand, Section 2(b) stipulates that all other lands, referred to as Non-Urban lands, shall fall under the control and management of the local government within the jurisdiction where the land is located.

The governor of a state has the power to grant a certificate of occupancy. In Nigerian law, a Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) is a crucial document that serves as evidence of lawful ownership and control of land or property. It is a formal land title issued by the appropriate government authority to an individual upon the fulfilment of the essential and formal validities required of him by law.

Generally, in some states, the initial validity of a C of O is 99 years from the date of issuance. However, this period can vary, and some states might grant C of O with shorter durations, such as 50 or 70 years.

By virtue of Section 9(1), the governor can issue a certificate of occupancy in the following circumstances:
• When granting a statutory right of occupancy to any person in pursuance of Section 5(1a).
• Where a person in occupation of land under a customary right of Occupancy applies to him.
• When any person is entitled to a statutory right of occupancy.

So the legal question is: does a Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) grant title to the holder? the principle of law is that a C of O does not confer title but acts as evidence, presuming the holder’s right to use and develop the land for a specified purpose, subject to terms and conditions outlined in the document.

In Olohunde & Anor V Adeyoju (2000) 79 LRCN 2297 at 2328 paras D – E, the Court held that: “A certificate of statutory or customary right of occupancy issued under the Land Use Act, 1978; cannot be said to be conclusive evidence of any right, interest or valid title to land in favour of the grantee. It is at best, only a prima facie evidence of such right, interest or title without more and may in appropriate cases be effectively challenged and rendered invalid, null and void.”

Similarly, In the case of Chinye A. A. Ezeanah v. Alhaji Muhammed I. Attah (2004) 2 SCNJ 200, the court stated that “a properly issued Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) creates the presumption that the holder is the exclusive owner of the land and that no customary owner with unrevealed title existed at the time of issuance. However, this presumption can be challenged and revoked if evidence proves another person holds a superior title prior to the C of O issuance.“

The underlying rationale is as follows: in a state, all lands, except those falling under specific exceptions like Federal lands, are entrusted to the Governor. Consequently, when the certificate of occupancy expires and the holder chooses not to renew it, the land returns to the state. This process ensures that the state retains control and ownership of the lands, safeguarding their proper management and utilization.

Having in mind that the Land Use Act was promulgated in 1978, what then happens to land vested in some families under customary law? Can a governor still issue a certificate of occupancy in respect of these lands? And if he does, what effect does it have in the eyes of the land? These questions were adequately answered in the 2023 Supreme Court case of Maza v. Awuna (2023) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1868) 207 244

The Court started by reemphasizing the principle of law that where land situated in an urban area had been vested in any person, prior to the commencement of the Land Use Act, such an individual shall continue to hold such land as though a statutory right of Occupancy had been granted to him by the governor. Section 34 of the Act

In this case, the appellant claimed that the respondent trespassed on the land after a dispute over a portion of it in 2004. The respondent, however, stated that he was aware of the appellant’s claim only in 2003 when the appellant presented a Certificate of Occupancy for the land. The respondent provided evidence of his ownership since 1959, conducting various acts of ownership, including selling parts of the land and cultivating economic trees. These actions preceded the issuance of the appellant’s certificate of occupancy in 1981. The supreme court held that the appellant evidence of title is void and the certificate of occupancy was revoked.

The purport of this is, for a Certificate of occupancy or any document of title to land under the Land Use Act, 1978, to be valid, there must not be in existence at the time the Certificate was issued, a statutory or customary owner of the land in issue who was not divested of his legal interest to the land prior to that Grant. Malami v. Ohikhuare (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1670) 132

So in Dantsoho v. Mohammed (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 817) 457, the court ruled that once a valid grant or right exists over a piece of land, it can only be invalidated through lawful revocation, not by issuing another grant to a different person. In that case, the appellant’s Certificate of Occupancy, dated 7th October 1982, was deemed invalid as the respondent had an earlier Certificate of Occupancy, dated 11th August 1982, conferring title to the same land. Unless the respondent’s Certificate of Occupancy was lawfully revoked following the requirements of Section 28 of the Land Use Act, the Governor had no authority to grant another Certificate of Occupancy to someone else.

In conclusion, the principle of law is that a certificate of occupancy does not confer title on a holder. It is only evidencedence which raises the presumption of the title subject to existing ownership claims.

Thank you for reading. See you next week.

Murder stands as a grave offense within the legal framework of Nigerian Criminal Law. It is categorized as a capital offense, thus carrying the severe consequence of the death penalty, as stipulated in Section 319 of the Criminal Code.

Moving on, it is a well-settled principle of law, having received judicial blessings in a plethora of cases, that in a charge of murder, the prosecution must prove the following beyond reasonable doubt: a) The deceased had died. b) The death of the deceased was caused by the accused, and c) The act or omission of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence.

Today’s article seeks to answer the question: Whether the Court can convict for murder in the absence of a corpus delicti (dead body)? The concept of corpus delicti, which means “body of the crime” in Latin, refers to the evidence that a crime has been committed. While the presence of a dead body is often an important piece of evidence in murder cases, it is not always necessary for a court to convict someone of murder.

In Nigeria, a conviction for murder can be based on circumstantial evidence and testimony, even without the physical presence of a body. Over time, the courts may consider other evidence such as eyewitness testimonies, forensic evidence, DNA analysis, motive, and other supporting factors to establish the offence of murder.

Clothing this with judicial approval, in Babuga v. The State (1996) 7 NWLR Pt. 460 pg. 279 at 296, per Onu JSC, that:- “as a matter of fact conviction can properly be secured in the absence of a corpus delicti where there is a piece of strong direct evidence. It is true that the body of the deceased has not been recovered. But it is settled that where there is positive evidence that the victim had died, failure to recover his body need not frustrate conviction.”

This principle of law is also held in Ubani v State(2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 851) where death was inferred from the fact that the deceased was last seen with the Appellants three years ago. According to Edozie JSC on page 244 of the report: “having regard to the circumstances of this case, particularly the fact that three years after the incident, the deceased has not been found and there was no explanation from his assailants as to his whereabouts other than a bare denial of complicity in the crime, the inference is irresistible that he is dead; that it was the act of his assailants that caused his death and judging from the nature of the attack and the lethal weapons used, the attackers had the intention to kill or at least cause grievous bodily harm on the deceased. All the three ingredients of murder earlier enumerated having been established, the judgment of the trial Court convicting the 1st and 2nd appellants and the Court below affirming the conviction remains unassailable.”

In Joshua v State (2009) LPELR-8189(CA), the court per Sotonye Denton-West JCA held that in cases of extrajudicial killings, where the bodies of the victims are usually never found, the perpetrators cannot escape liability. The absence of the bodies does not absolve the murderers of responsibility

In conclusion, the principle of law is that even in the absence of a corpus delicti, a person can still be convicted of murder if there is strong unequivocal and compelling evidence that the victim of the alleged crime is dead.

Thank you for reading. See you next week.