When does delusion amount to insanity under criminal law? Can a man who kills another under the belief that he was protecting himself from future death by juju rely on insanity as a defence? This was the complex and fascinating question that came before the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Clement Iwuanyanwu v. The State (1964), a case that tested the application of Section 28 of the Criminal Code to the doctrine of delusion and criminal responsibility.
This judgment is particularly significant because it illustrates how the courts treat claims of supernatural threats, witchcraft, and delusion in criminal trials. It highlights the delicate balance between legal responsibility, mental illness, and the cultural realities of traditional beliefs.
Background of the Case Iwuanyanwu v. The State (1964),
The appellant, Clement Iwuanyanwu, was convicted for the murder of one Chijioke Okorafor-Ocha. The trial judge found that the deceased died from stab wounds deliberately inflicted by the appellant without any provocation visible to eyewitnesses.
During police investigations, the appellant confessed that the deceased had, about six months earlier, engaged a witch doctor to prepare charms “to kill him.” He claimed further that the deceased, alongside two other men (Donatus and Patrick), had sent evil spirits after him and even threatened to kill him at night through supernatural means unless he left his home.
The appellant stated that he frequently saw these men in his dreams committing evil against him. Though at trial he denied remembering the incident, the judge rejected this account, holding that he had waylaid the deceased and intentionally stabbed him to death.
The Defence of Insanity and Delusion
Section 28 of the Criminal Codeprovides that a person suffering from delusion is “criminally responsible for the act…to the same extent as if the real state of things had been such as he was induced by the delusions to believe to exist.”
This meant the court had to determine whether, if the facts were as the appellant believed, he could still escape liability.
The evidence showed that Iwuanyanwu believed he was under imminent danger from the deceased’s witchcraft, and that his life would be taken through supernatural means unless he struck first. However, at the moment of the killing, the deceased was not physically attacking him.
The trial judge referred to the principle in Thamu of Guyuk v. The Queen (14 W.A.C.A. 372) and concluded that while the appellant suffered from delusions, he nonetheless understood the nature of his act and intentionally carried it out.
Judgment of the Court Clement Iwuanyanwu v. The State (1964),
Delivering the judgment of the court Onyeama J.S.C., with Bairamian J.S.C. and Coker J.S.C.concurring, held that the defence of insanity could not avail the appellant under Section 28.
The court reasoned that, even on the assumption of his delusions, the appellant killed someone who was only going to kill him in the future by means of juju. Thus, the killing was a pre-emptive strike, not an act of self-defence.
“At the time the appellant killed the deceased, the deceased was not attacking him; and the whole purpose of the murderous attack on the deceased was to prevent his own death in the future to be caused by Juju. On the assumption of the delusions, he was not acting in self-defence at the moment that he stabbed and is not exonerated under the second paragraph of section 28.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the High Court were affirmed.
The Court’s Further Observations
While affirming the conviction, the Supreme Court drew attention to the appellant’s mental history. Evidence showed he had suffered previous bouts of illness where he became moody and even ate sand. Yet, there was no proof that he had ever been under medical observation. The court recommended that medical examination might reveal a condition that should be brought to the attention of the Governor.
“We wish, however, to draw attention to the evidence of the appellant’s mental history. There is nothing to show that the appellant has been under medical observation and it may be that medical examination will disclose a condition which ought to be brought to the attention of the Governor.”
The Supreme Court therefore held:The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
The conviction and sentence of the High Court of Aba (delivered on 14th September, 1964) were upheld,as Appeal was dismissed.
Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962)(Full summary)