IDEH V. STATE (2019)

Background

The appellant, David Uche Ideh, was employed as a house help by the deceased, a retired Chief Magistrate of Ogun State. After stealing property from the deceased’s home, he was arrested but released when the deceased discontinued her complaint. He later returned to the house, hid there overnight and attacked the deceased with a machete when she returned home. She died from the injuries. The appellant was charged with murder under sections 316 and 319 of the Criminal Law of Ogun State. The High Court convicted him and sentenced him to death. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court.

During the trial, defence counsel twice applied for psychiatric or medical examination of the appellant. The applications were based principally on information supplied by the appellant concerning alleged past episodes of abnormal behaviour. Counsel expressly stated that insanity was not being raised as a plea. The trial judge refused the applications, finding from the appellant’s conduct and testimony that he was sufficiently of sound mind and mentally capable of defending himself.

Issues

The principal issue was whether the refusal to order psychiatric evaluation breached sections 223 and 224 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Ogun State, 2006, or the appellant’s constitutional right to fair hearing and adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence under section 36(6)(b) and (d) of the Constitution.

The Court also considered the applicable principles concerning the defence of insanity, including the burden of proving insanity and the circumstances in which a trial court must investigate an accused person’s mental capacity.

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 223 and 224 of the Criminal Procedure Law are activated where the trial judge has reason to suspect that the accused is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of following the proceedings or making a proper defence. Such suspicion may arise from abnormal conduct observed by the court, evidence of mental instability raised during the trial, or a properly grounded request by defence counsel. A psychiatric inquiry cannot be ordered in a vacuum or merely on counsel’s unsupported assertion.

The defence of insanity must be clearly raised and proved. The relevant inquiry concerns the accused’s mental state at the time of committing the act: whether, by reason of disease of the mind, he lacked the capacity to understand the nature and quality of the act or to know that it was wrong or contrary to law. The evidential burden lies on the accused, who must establish the defence on the balance of probabilities. Once the prosecution is put on notice that insanity is genuinely being raised, it has a duty to assist by investigating relevant evidence and arranging appropriate medical observation.

The accusatorial system requires the judge to remain an impartial umpire rather than descend into the arena to investigate a defence that has not been properly raised or supported. A counsel’s ipse dixit, based solely on what the accused told him, is insufficient to establish mental incapacity or compel a psychiatric examination.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that neither of the appellant’s applications properly raised insanity, natural mental infirmity or partial delusion. In the second application, counsel expressly stated that insanity was not being advanced as a plea and sought an assessment of the appellant’s general health rather than his mental state at the time of the offence.

The trial judge had observed the appellant before and during his testimony and found him calm, collected, logical and capable of giving a coherent defence. There was no sufficient material requiring an inquiry under sections 223 and 224. The appellant also failed to call family members or other witnesses who could have corroborated his account of earlier abnormal behaviour. The Supreme Court distinguished Mboho v. State, where existing evidential material required the trial court to investigate the accused’s fitness to stand trial.

The Court further held that the appellant had not shown that the trial court prevented counsel from independently inviting a psychiatrist to examine him. Consequently, the refusal to make a court order did not deprive him of adequate facilities or violate his right to fair hearing. The concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal disclosed no special circumstance warranting interference.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed. The conviction for murder and sentence of death imposed by the High Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal were upheld. The Supreme Court expressly affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision in Appeal No. CA/IB/245C/2015 delivered on 30 June 2016.

Significance

The decision clarifies that a request for psychiatric evaluation is not automatically required whenever defence counsel expresses concern about an accused’s mental condition. There must be a proper factual basis for suspecting that the accused is unable to understand or participate in the proceedings, or that insanity affected his criminal responsibility at the time of the offence. It also distinguishes fitness to stand trial from the substantive defence of insanity and reaffirms the court’s duty to preserve impartiality within Nigeria’s accusatorial criminal justice system.