This week’s article centers on an interesting topic: the legal implications surrounding the criminal liability of someone who tests the effectiveness of a gun charm on an individual with that individual’s consent, resulting in the individual’s death. This scenario is not uncommon in our society, often portrayed in Nollywood movies where herbalists test the potency of their charms on the person who commissioned them.
The legal issues in this scenario are: Is the accused liable for murder in such a situation? Does the victim’s consent serve as an exclupatory defense against the charge of murder? This scenario is modelled after the case of State v Okezie (1972) 2 E.C.S.L.R. 419. In that case, the defendant, a native doctor, crafted some charms for the deceased. Subsequently, the deceased invited the defendant to assess the efficacy of the charm by testing it on him, specifically by firing a shot. Tragically, the defendant complied and shot the deceased in the chest, resulting in his death. As a consequence, the defendant was convicted of murder.
The legal principle at play here is that consent given by a person to cause their own death does not absolve any individual who causes that death from criminal responsibility. Hence, the principle of volenti non fit injuria(to the willing, no injury is done) doesn’t apply in this circumstance. This principle also underpins the criminalization of voluntary euthanasia in Nigeria.
Thank you for reading. See you next week.
THELEGALSTANDPOINT 