The Nigerian Criminal Code makes a clear distinction between burglary and housebreaking, primarily based on the time of day the offence is committed. The case of Etim v The State (2013) Section 411 of the Criminal Code in deciding cases involving unlawful entry with felonious intent. It also shows the weight courts attach to credible eyewitness testimony and the presence of weapons during such crimes.
Section 411 of the Criminal Code states:
“A person who breaks and enters a dwelling house with intent to commit a felony, or having entered with like intent, or having committed the felony breaks out, is guilty of an offence. If the offence is committed in the daytime, it is housebreaking and the offender is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years. If it is committed at night, it is burglary and the offender is liable to imprisonment for life.”
From this provision: Housebreaking occurs when the offence is committed in the daytime and attracts up to 14 years’ imprisonment.
Brief Facts of the Case of Etim v The State (2013).
Three accused persons, all armed with firearms, confronted Rachael Nsofor as she was opening her gate.They positioned themselves directly behind her, preventing any escape.One of them pointed a long gun at her and ordered her not to look at him.Realising she was in the hands of armed robbers, she complied with their instructions.The robbers, who were not masked, forced her into her house and asked about her husband’s whereabouts.She replied that he had travelled.At a suitable moment, she escaped and ran to her neighbour’s house.The amount stolen was ₦1,000.
The accused thereafter, were arrested and charged under Section 411 of the Criminal Code for housebreaking. During trial, the prosecution relied heavily on the complainant’s direct eyewitness identification, as she had seen the robbers clearly. The trial court found the evidence credible and convicted the accused.
Judgment of the court in Etim v state
The court held that:
1.There was unlawful entry into the complainant’s premises.
2. The entry was with intent to commit a felony, namely robbery.
3. The crime occurred during the daytime, making it housebreaking under Section 411, not burglary.
4. The complainant’s unshaken identification evidence was sufficient to secure a conviction, since the accused were unmasked and known to her by sight.
The accused were therefore convicted of housebreaking.
Now a critical Legal Analysis of this case Etim v state reveals the following underlying principles with respect to Housebreaking and Burglary.
1. Time of Commission is Key.
The classification between burglary and housebreaking depends on whether the offence occurred at night or during the day. Even though firearms were involved, the crime took place in daylight, hence it was correctly classified as housebreaking.
2. Felonious Intent.
It is not enough to prove unlawful entry—there must be proof of intent to commit a felony inside the premises. Here, the use of weapons, the threats, and the demand for money clearly demonstrated this intent.
Weapons as Aggravating Factors.
The presence of firearms not only proved the seriousness of the offence but also showed that the accused came prepared to overcome any resistance.
Conclusion.
Etim v The State is a practical example of how Nigerian courts apply Section 411 of the Criminal Code in cases of unlawful entry. The judgment demonstrates that the time of day, the presence of felonious intent, and credible identification are decisive in determining guilt. It also sends a strong message that armed intrusions, even during daylight, will be met with severe legal consequences.