The case of Riskuwa Shanawa v. Sokoto Native Authority (1962) remains a landmark decision of the Federal Supreme Court of Nigeria on the law of homicide, particularly on the effect of provocation in reducing a charge of culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221 of the Penal Code to culpable homicide not punishable with death under Section 222.
The judgment, delivered on 5th October 1962 by Ademola, C.J.F., alongside Mbanefo, F.J. and Quashie-Idun, C.J. (East), is significant because it clarified how Nigerian courts should apply the doctrine of provocation, and the proper interpretation of Section 222(4) of the Penal Code (N.N. No. 18 of 1959).
Classification of Offences in Nigerian Criminal Law
Facts of the Case Shanawa v. Sokoto Native Authority (1962) FSC 242/1962
The dispute arose when the deceased repeatedly drove his cattle into the appellant’s farm. On the second occasion, the deceased threatened to kill the appellant. The following day, he returned, abused him, and started a fight.
During the fight, the deceased struck the appellant twice with a stick, pinned him to the ground, and held on tightly to his tuft of hair. The grip was so severe that those who intervened could not release him, and it was only by cutting the appellant’s hair that he was freed.
In the midst of the agony, the appellant drew a knife. First, he cut the deceased’s hand in an attempt to free himself, but when the grip persisted, he stabbed him in the ribs. The deceased died later that night from the wound.
The trial court convicted the appellant of culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221(a) of the Penal Code.
Issue Before the Court
The central issue on appeal was whether the circumstances amounted to provocation sufficient to reduce the offence from culpable homicide punishable with death to culpable homicide not punishable with death.
The Law Relied Upon
Section 221(a) of the Penal Code
“Whoever commits culpable homicide shall be punished with death… if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death.”
Section 222(4) of the Penal Code
“Culpable homicide is not punishable with death if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”
The Sultan’s Court held that the appellant, being a mature man, could not have stabbed the deceased if he had not intended to kill him from the beginning.The High Court of the Northern Region agreed, holding that the provocation was not sufficient for a man of his maturity to lose self-control.
The Federal Supreme Court’s Analysis
On the Test of Provocation
Ademola, C.J.F. rejected the reasoning of the lower courts. He emphasized that the correct test was objective, citing:
“The test to be applied is whether the provocation was sufficient to deprive a reasonable man of his self-control, not whether it was sufficient to deprive of his self-control the particular person charged.”(R. v. Lesbini (24 Cox 516; 11 C.A.R. 7); R. v. Alexander (23 Cox 604; 9 C.A.R. 139))
The Court found that the violent and agonizing grip on the appellant’s hair was sufficient provocation to deprive a reasonable man of self-control.
On Section 222(4) of the Penal Code
The Supreme Court noted that the trial court failed to consider Section 222(4), which clearly provided that culpable homicide is not punishable with death if committed:
without premeditation,
in a sudden fight,
in the heat of passion,
and without the offender taking undue advantage.
The Federal Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s view that the appellant took undue advantage. The deceased was the aggressor: he had threatened the appellant, struck him twice, and inflicted severe agony by pulling his hair.
“We fail to see the undue advantage taken by the appellant which should deprive him of the protection of the subsection. The appellant did not begin the attack in the circumstances of undue advantage; the deceased provoked the fight, threatened to kill, and struck the first blows.”
The Court concluded that the appellant acted in a sudden fight without premeditation, and that the stabbing occurred in the heat of passion and agony, thereby falling squarely under Section 222(4).
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction for culpable homicide punishable with death under Section 221(a). It substituted a conviction for culpable homicide not punishable with death under Section 222(1) of the Penal Code.
The appellant was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment with hard labour.
Etim v State: Key Facts, Issues & Court’s Decision
AFRICAN PRESS LTD V. THE QUEEN (1951) WACA 57–Sedition in Nigerian Law
