ADAMU V. STATE (2025)

Background

This appeal concerned the conviction of Sagir Adamu for culpable homicide punishable with death under section 221 of the Penal Code Law applicable in Bauchi State. The incident occurred on 12 April 2015, against the background of political differences following an election. The deceased, Yahaya Baba, had been sitting with prosecution witnesses when a campaign poster was torn. The deceased and others chased the person responsible towards the place where the appellant was sitting. The prosecution’s evidence was that the appellant picked up a stick and struck the deceased once on the head. The deceased fell, was taken to Darazo Hospital, and was subsequently pronounced dead.

The appellant admitted hitting the deceased but gave a different account. He maintained that the deceased and members of his political group approached him carrying sticks and a cutlass, that he was first struck, and that he hit the deceased with a stick while attempting to defend himself. He also contended that the deceased later rose and went with others towards a house. The appellant’s extra-judicial statement, Exhibit A1, and the testimony of his defence witness supported his admission that he struck the deceased, although they raised questions concerning self-defence, the circumstances of the encounter, and his intention.

The High Court of Bauchi State discharged and acquitted the appellant on 19 July 2018, holding that the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. On the prosecution’s appeal, the Court of Appeal, Jos Division, set aside the acquittal, convicted the appellant as charged, and sentenced him to death by hanging. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to reverse the trial court’s acquittal and convict the appellant for culpable homicide punishable with death.
2. Whether the appellant’s reliance on self-defence, private defence, or defence of property was established by the evidence.
3. Whether the prosecution proved the causal connection between the appellant’s act and the deceased’s death, and proved the necessary intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court reiterated that the burden of proving a criminal allegation rests throughout on the prosecution and must be discharged beyond reasonable doubt. In a charge of culpable homicide punishable with death, the prosecution must cumulatively establish: first, that the deceased died; secondly, that the death resulted from the act of the accused; and thirdly, that the act was intentional, or was done with knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequence. Failure to prove any one of these ingredients means that the capital offence has not been established.

The Court held that the first two ingredients were proved. The death of Yahaya Baba was not disputed, and the evidence of the eyewitnesses, together with the appellant’s own admission, established that the appellant struck him. The absence of medical evidence was not fatal. Where a person is healthy before an assault, suffers injury, and dies instantly or shortly thereafter, with no break in the chain of events, the court may infer causation from the surrounding circumstances. Causation is concerned with whether the accused’s act was the proximate or effective cause of death, not necessarily whether a medical expert formally identified the cause.

However, the prosecution did not prove the third ingredient beyond reasonable doubt. Although the law permits intention to be inferred from conduct, the court must consider the nature of the weapon, the part of the body targeted, the force and circumstances of the attack, the proximity of the weapon, and the surrounding relationship between the parties. The evidence showed only that the appellant struck the deceased once with a stick. The stick was not tendered, its character was not described, and there was no evidence that it was a lethal weapon or that the deceased’s head had been severely brutalised. The parties were also said to have been friends, with no established history of animosity. Exhibit A1 admitted the blow but did not disclose an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The Court therefore held that intention could not be supplied by speculation.

Court Findings

The Court rejected the defence of self-defence. Self-defence is governed by necessity and proportionality. An accused must show an unlawful assault, a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm, and that the force used was necessary and proportionate to the threat. On the evidence, there was no reliable proof that the deceased was the person who initially struck the appellant. Nor was there evidence that the appellant faced an impending peril requiring the use of force capable of causing fatal injury. The appellant’s response therefore exceeded what was reasonably necessary, and the defence did not avail him.

Nevertheless, the failure to prove intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm meant that the conviction for culpable homicide punishable with death could not stand. The Supreme Court invoked Order 7 rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024 and section 22 of the Supreme Court Act. It held that the facts proved the lesser offence of culpable homicide not punishable with death under section 224 of the Penal Code. That offence contains the same basic elements of death and causation, but applies where the fatal act occurred accidentally, in the heat of passion caused by provocation, or in circumstances involving a complete lack of the required intention.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed in part. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction for culpable homicide punishable with death and substituted a conviction for culpable homicide not punishable with death. The death sentence was consequently replaced with twenty years’ imprisonment, commencing from the date of the appellant’s arraignment before the trial court.

Significance

The decision is significant because it distinguishes causing death from possessing the mental element necessary for a capital homicide conviction. It confirms that proof that an accused inflicted the fatal injury does not automatically establish an intention to kill. Courts must separately and carefully assess mens rea, particularly where the weapon is an ordinary object, the blow was isolated, and the surrounding circumstances leave room for reasonable doubt. The judgment also affirms that medical evidence is not invariably indispensable to prove causation and that an appellate court may convict for a proved lesser offence where the evidence supports it, while preserving the constitutional and evidential requirement that doubt concerning an essential ingredient must benefit the accused.