ADIGBO V. STATE (2026)

Background

Okechukwu Adigbo was charged before the High Court of Enugu State with murdering Michael Ojon, contrary to section 319(1) of the applicable Criminal Code Law. The prosecution alleged that, on the eve of an election, the appellant, who belonged to a rival political party, struck the deceased heavily on the chest with his fist. The deceased slumped, was taken to hospital, and was confirmed dead. The prosecution relied principally on the eyewitness evidence of PW1 and PW2, police evidence, and a medical/autopsy report admitted as Exhibit P4. The appellant denied striking the deceased and claimed that they merely engaged in friendly pushing. His defence also suggested that the deceased had pre-existing ailments. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to death. The Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Issues

1. Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant killed the deceased.
2. Whether the evidence established that the appellant intended to kill the deceased or knew that death or grievous bodily harm was the probable consequence of his act.

Ratio Decidendi

For murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the death of a human being, that the death was caused by the act or omission of the accused, and that the act was done with the intention of causing death or with knowledge that death would probably result. Where the death of the deceased is not disputed, the prosecution may be relieved of the need to prove that ingredient separately. Medical evidence is not indispensable where the cause of death is obvious or can be established by credible eyewitness evidence. The direct and corroborative evidence that the appellant delivered a heavy fist blow to the deceased’s chest, followed immediately by the deceased’s collapse and death, sufficiently established causation. The nature and location of the blow also supported the inference that the appellant intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

The Supreme Court will rarely interfere with concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts. Such findings enjoy a presumption of regularity, and an appellant must demonstrate that they are perverse, contrary to law, or have occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Issues for determination in an appeal must arise from the grounds of appeal and specifically challenge the decision under appeal. General or abstract questions that merely repeat issues determined by the trial court are not valid appellate issues.

Court Findings

The Court found that the death of Michael Ojon was admitted or otherwise conclusively established by the evidence of the witnesses and Exhibit P4. PW1 and PW2 gave direct, consistent and corroborative evidence that the appellant struck the deceased on the chest, after which he slumped. Exhibit P4 attributed the death to haemorrhagic shock caused by intra-abdominal haemorrhage resulting from extensive splenic rupture following severe and heavy external blunt injury. The Court rejected the appellant’s suggestion that the deceased was already suffering from ailments that caused his death.

The Court held that the cause of death was sufficiently obvious from the eyewitness evidence and surrounding facts, although medical evidence was in any event available. It accepted the concurrent findings that the appellant’s act caused the death and that the blow was intentional. The appellant’s two issues were held to be general, vague and insufficiently precise because they did not challenge any particular finding of the Court of Appeal or allege perversity, violation of law or miscarriage of justice. The appeal therefore did not properly engage the limited scope of Supreme Court review of concurrent findings.

The Court also described the incident as an example of political and electoral violence, explaining that political violence involves the use of force, intimidation or harm to achieve political objectives, while electoral violence includes threats or acts of physical harm, coercion or intimidation during the election cycle intended to influence electoral outcomes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Judicial Division, which had affirmed the appellant’s conviction for murder and sentence to death.

Significance

The decision reinforces the elements required to prove murder, the circumstances in which medical evidence may be dispensed with, and the evidential value of direct testimony linking an accused person’s act to a death. It also underscores the strict procedural requirements for appeals against concurrent findings of fact: an appellant must identify a specific erroneous or perverse finding and show the resulting legal injustice. Broad questions that simply invite a general reconsideration of the evidence will not suffice.