Contributor: Animasaun Iyanuoluwa Kayode
INTRODUCTION
The Nigerian legal system faces a daunting challenge: striking a balance between holding individuals accountable for their actions and protecting the rights of those struggling with mental health issues. This delicate balance is a global concern, and Nigeria is no exception. This article examines the Nigerian legal framework’s mental health and criminal responsibility approach, highlighting key statutes and judicial precedents.
Mental health issues affect millions of Nigerians, with significant implications for the criminal justice system. The intersection of mental health and criminal responsibility raises critical questions like whether individuals with mental health issues can form the necessary intent to commit a crime, should mental health be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing, or, how can the legal system ensure justice while protecting the rights of individuals with mental health conditions and other related questions.[1]
DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS
Mental health encompasses emotional, psychological, and social well-being, influencing cognition, perception, and behaviour. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), it is a “state of well-being in which the individual realizes his or her abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and can contribute to his or her community.[2]
Criminal responsibility refers to a person’s ability to understand his or her conduct when a crime is committed. In other words, what a person thinks when he commits a crime, or what result is anticipated or expected when a crime is committed.[3] More often than not, several crimes are traceable to the mental and psychological defects of the accused. It is however pertinent to understand the legal and judicial reaction to the mental defense in determining the criminal responsibility of the accused.
NIGERIAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK
- Nigerian Criminal Code Act (1990)
- The Penal Code Act. (1960)
- Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999)
- Relevant Nigerian case law and statutes
The Nigerian Criminal Code Act addresses the complexities of criminal responsibility, particularly concerning mental health. Section 28 of the Nigerian Criminal Code Act provides that:
“a person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time of doing the act or making the omission he is in such a state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity as to deprive him of the capacity to understand what he is doing, or of capacity to control his actions, or of capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission. A person whose mind, at the time of his doing or omitting to do an act, is affected by delusions on some specific matter or matters, but who is not otherwise entitled to the benefit of the foregoing provisions of this section, is criminally responsible for the act or omission to the same extent as if the real state of things had been such as the delusion induced him to believe to exist.”[4]
Section 51 of the Penal Code reads thus:
“Nothing is an offense that is done by a person who at the time of doing it, because of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.”
Section 29 of the Nigerian Criminal Code Act provides that:
“A person who, at the time of doing an act, was suffering from such abnormality of mind as substantially impaired their mental responsibility for their actions shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.”
In Nigeria, the insanity defence is typically raised in trials involving severe crimes, such as murder, and occasionally manslaughter. However, this defence is rarely successful.[5] Under Nigerian law, adults are presumed sane and responsible for their actions. [6]The Evidence Act places the burden of proof for insanity or intoxication defences on the accused. This means the accused must demonstrate they were insane at the time of the crime.[7] It is essential to note that the burden of proof for the defence differs from the prosecution’s requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To establish insanity, the accused must show, on the balance of probability, that they were insane during the commission of the crime. [8]
In OSENI v. STATE,[9] the Court of Appeal held that every person is presumed to be of sound mind and to have been of sound mind at any time which comes in question until the contrary is proved. There is a rebuttable presumption of sanity on every accused until the otherwise is proved.
The West African Court of Appeal in R. v. Echem[10] held “that the burden of proof which rests upon the person to establish the defence of insanity is not as heavy as that which rests upon the prosecution when proving its case against an accused person. It may be stated as not being higher than the burden which rests on a plaintiff or defendant in civil proceedings.” The Supreme Court restated this position in State v. Inyang [11]when it held that the burden of proof on the defence is discharged if it is established on the balance of probability that the accused was insane when he committed the offence.
It is basic that for an accused to establish the defence of insanity, he must depict the following:
- That at the material time of committing the offence, the accused was suffering either from mental disease or natural mental infirmity[12]
- That the mental disease or natural mental infirmity result deprived of capacity- (i) to control his action, or (ii) to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission. [13]
ATTITUDE OF THE COURT
Determining insanity in court involves a thorough investigation, which can be raised at any point during the trial. The Court must do the following things:
In the instance that the issue of insanity is raised as a defence, the court must investigate immediately. The judge orders the accused to be sent to a psychiatric hospital or asylum for observation. The medical officer can detain them for up to a month to assess their mental state and provide a written opinion to the court. Afterwards, the court decides on the accused’s sanity based on evidence, considering the medical officer’s report, but not solely relying on it. [14]Section 217(1) of the Nigerian Criminal Code empowers courts to order psychiatric evaluations: “(1) Where a person is charged with an offence, and the court has reason to believe that the person may be insane, the court may, at any stage of the proceedings, order that the person be examined by one or more registered medical practitioners.” The purpose of the medical evaluation is to determine the accused’s mental fitness to stand trial and assess his criminal responsibility. The accused must prove their insanity on a balance of probability. To establish insanity, the defence must demonstrate:
- The accused’s mental faculties were impaired.
- A medical condition affected their mental state.
- The accused didn’t comprehend the nature or wrongfulness of their actions.[15]
When a trial is postponed due to the accused’s insanity, the court can restart the trial at any time and require the accused to appear once they’re fit to stand trial. At this resumed trial, the court determines whether the accused is insane, which affects their criminal liability for the alleged offence. To make this determination, the court considers expert evidence from medical officers who’ve observed the accused. However, the court isn’t obligated to accept this evidence, regardless of the expert’s credentials in psychiatry. Judges have the final say in deciding whether the accused is insane, taking into account their own observations and any other relevant evidence. Medical evidence is valuable but not essential, as held in State v. Inyang[16]. For instance, in State v. Joshua Agboola[17], the Oyo State High Court rejected a medical report stating the accused was sane and instead found the accused guilty but insane.
This raises questions about the judicial approach to insanity defences. Courts base their decisions on evidence presented, considering factors like:
- Past incidents or patterns indicate insanity.
- Actions leading up to the incident.
- Noticing abnormal behaviour during detention.
- Medical officers’ evaluations
- Relatives’ testimonies
- Family history of insanity
Ultimately, proving insanity is complex, and judges have discretion in their decisions, even if medical evidence suggests otherwise.
Challenges
- There may be difficulties in diagnosing mental health conditions and assessing their impact on criminal behaviour.
- There may be limited understanding and stigma surrounding mental health issues that hinder the effective implementation of legal safeguards.
- There may be inadequate resources for mental health support and treatment to exacerbate the issue.
Recommendation
- Clear guidelines for mental health evaluations and treatment are needed.
- There should be increased awareness and training of legal professionals, law enforcement, and the public about mental health issues.
- Adequate investment in mental health support and treatment services by the Government.
Conclusion
The Nigerian Criminal Code’s provisions on insanity aim to balance justice with compassion. However, challenges persist, and reform efforts are necessary to ensure a more effective and humane approach to mental health and criminal responsibility. In essence, the current system aims to protect the mentally challenged while ensuring justice is served. However, some argue that the [18]insanity defence can be a loophole in law enforcement, allowing individuals to escape criminal responsibility[19]
Snippet
The Nigerian Criminal Code’s provisions on insanity aim to balance justice with compassion.
Keywords
criminal responsibility, mental, insanity
- LawTeacher. Legal Burden of Proof. Available at Legal Burden of Proof (lawteacher.net) accessed on 20th September 2024 ↑
- World Health Organization. Health and Well-Being. Available at Health and Well-Being (who.int). accessed on 20th September 2024 ↑
- Study.com. Criminal Responsibility, Mental States, Evaluation & Defense. Available at https://study.com/academy/lesson/criminal-responsibility-definition-evaluation-legal-defenses.html accessed on 20th September 2024 ↑
- Jurist.ng. Section 28 of the Criminal Code Act in Nigeria. Insanity. Available at https://jurist.ng/criminal_code_act/sec-28 accessed on 20th September 2024. ↑
- Ibid ↑
- Ibid ↑
- Section 140(3)(c) Evidence Act. ↑
- C. Ewhrudjakpor. Application of Defence of Insanity in Nigerian Courts: The Missing Link. Available at https://www.ajol.info/index.php/njpsyc/article/view/50115 accessed on 20th September 2024. ↑
- (2017) LPELR-42770(CA) ↑
- (1952) 1 WACA 158 ↑
- (SC. 73/76) [1977] NGSC 6 (18 ↑
- OKON v. STATE (2014) LPELR-22446(CA) ↑
- Sanusi v. The State (1984) 10 SC 166; Ihonre v. The State (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 778. ↑
- Ibid ↑
- Ibid ↑
- Ibid ↑
- (2013) CLR 5(L) (SC) ↑
- Ibid. ↑
- ↑
