In our earlier introductory post on PARTIES TO AN OFFENCE ,we provided a general overview of how the Nigerian Criminal Code identifies individuals who may be held liable in connection with an offence. Today, we turn to Section 7 of the Criminal Code, which has been described as the bedrock provision defining who is a party to an offence.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes, once said:
“The law is nothing but what the court says it is.”
In that spirit, this post will dissect Section 7 strictly through judicial interpretation,citing landmark cases to clarify its meaning.
What Does Section 7 of the Criminal Code Say?
Section 7 of the Nigerian Criminal Code provides:
“When an offence is committed, each of the following persons is deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it—
(a) every person who actually does the act or makes the omission which constitutes the offence;
(c) every person who aids another person in committing the offence; and
(d) any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence.”
This provision is far-reaching, as it establishes that criminal liability is not limited to the person who physically commits the crime, but also extends to those who aid, abet, counsel, or use an innocent agent.
SECTION 24 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE NIGERIA FULL ANALYSIS OF INTENTION AS AN ASPECT OF MENS REA
Section 7(a): The Principal Offender — By Act or Omission
Section 7(a) recognizes that an offence can be committed by an act or an omission.
Sunday Kala Alagba & Ors v. R (1950)
The Privy Council, per Lord Tucker, held that where it is proved that two or more persons acted in concert in committing an offence, it is unnecessary to prove which of them did the actual act or omission. The key element is that one of them must have done it.
Bashaya v. The State (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt. 550)
Here, a group of armed men attacked and killed a traveler. The court held that the identity of the person who struck the fatal blow was irrelevant — all who participated were equally guilty of murder. This case demonstrates the principle of joint enterprise under Section 7(a).
Innocent Agents under Section 7(a)
A person may still be regarded as a principal offender even where the act is carried out by an innocent agent.
R v. Idiong & Umo
The accused, intending to procure an abortion, took a woman to a native doctor. The doctor, unaware of the true intention, administered drugs, which caused her death. The court held the accused liable as a principal offender, since the agent acted innocently.
R v. Stinger
An employer dictated a fraudulent letter to his secretary, who had no knowledge of the fraud. The employer was held liable as the principal offender, while the secretary was treated as an innocent agent.
R v. Michael (1840)
A mother, intending to kill her child, handed poison to her nurse, who unknowingly left it on a shelf. Another child administered it to the baby, leading to its death. The mother was held liable, and the child was regarded as an innocent agent.
Key Takeaway from Authorities cited:
Anyone who procures the act of a person without criminal intent (e.g., children, persons of unsound mind, or unaware agents) will be regarded as the true principal offender under Section 7(a).
Section 7(b) and 7(c): Aiding and Abetting an Offence
Section 7(b) – Accessory Before the Fact
This applies to a person who performs an act before the commission of an offence to enable or aid another person.
Onyenye v. State (2022)
The accused sold drugged sachet water to passengers to enable his companions to rob them. Though he was not physically present during the robbery, the court held him liable as a principal offender under Section 7(b).
Section 7(c) – Aiding at the Time of the Offence
This covers persons who aid during the commission of the crime.
Enweonye v. R (1955)
The court emphasized that for liability under Section 7(c), there must be clear evidence that the accused actually assisted in committing the offence. Mere presence at the scene is not enough.
Is Mere Presence Enough?
The courts have consistently held that mere presence at the scene of a crime does not automatically make a person a party to the offence:
R v. Ukpe – Presence at a planning meeting was insufficient without further proof of participation.
Akani v. R– A crowd who watched a house burn without helping was not guilty under Section 7.
Azuma v. R – Mere presence is not enough; there must be purposeful facilitation.
R v. Akpunonu (1942) –A wife who stood by as her husband buried twins alive was not guilty under Section 7(c), though she could be liable under other provisions for neglect.
However, if presence is coupled with omission where a duty exists (e.g., a chief, police officer, or parent deliberately failing to act), liability may arise.
Section 7(d): Counseling or Procuring an Offence
This section deals with those who encourage or procure others to commit crimes,even if they do not physically participate.
R v. Idika
The court held that mere permission is not enough; there must be positive encouragement.
Ajalo v. Alkali Amodu
Here, a traditional ruler ordered a policeman to slap an accused person in court. He was held guilty of assault under Section 7(d).
Can You Be Convicted if the Principal Offender is Acquitted?
This issue was considered in:
R v. Okagbue (1958)
The Federal Supreme Court held that an accused charged with aiding cannot be convicted if the alleged principal offenders are acquitted. The reasoning was that it would be absurd to say one aided a felony when no felony was actually committed.
However, if the charge does not name the principal offenders but proves the accused aided in committing the offence, his conviction can stand.
Key Takeaways on Section 7 Criminal Code
Section 7(a):Applies to enabling or aiding before the offence (accessory before the fact).
Section 7(b):Applies to enabling or aiding before the offence (accessory before the fact).
Section 7(c): Applies to aiding during the offence, but mere presence is insufficient.
Section 7(d):Criminalizes counseling, encouraging, or procuring another to commit an offence.
Judicial authorities consistently stress proof of actual participation, encouragement, or omission where a duty exists.
this previous post dissect the intent statutory requirement of section(7) PARTIES TO AN OFFENCE UNDER NIGERIAN CRIMINAL LAW (section 7)
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1: What is an innocent agent under Section 7?
An innocent agent is a person who commits the physical act of a crime without criminal intent (e.g., children, mentally incapable persons, or unaware assistants).
Q2: Can someone be convicted under Section 7 if they only stood by?
Mere presence is not enough. There must be proof of encouragement, aiding, or a deliberate omission where a duty to act exists.
Q3: What if the principal offender is acquitted?
If the principal offender is acquitted, a person charged with aiding may also be acquitted (R v. Okagbue). However, conviction can stand where the principal is unknown but the accused’s role is proved.
What are the ELEMENTS OF CRIME: Meaning, Definition, and Full Criminal Law Notes in Nigeria
Conclusion
Section 7 of the Criminal Code is one of the most far-reaching provisions on criminal liability in Nigeria, ensuring that offenders cannot escape justice merely because they did not strike the fatal blow or directly commit the unlawful act. Whether by aiding, abetting, counseling, procuring, or using innocent agents, the law brings all participants within the fold of criminal responsibility.
By examining these judicial authorities, we see how Nigerian courts have interpreted the provision to ensure that justice is not defeated by technicalities.
If you’re a law student or researcher, always remember: under Section 7, criminal responsibility goes beyond the visible hand that commits the crime.
HISTORY & SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW IN NIGERIA
Relationship Between the Penal Code and Criminal Code in Nigeria
Classification of Offences in Nigerian Criminal Law
R v Bangaza (1960) 5 FSC 1 Key Facts, Legal Principles & Nigerian Case Analysis
The Offence of Stealing/Theft in Nigerian Legal Jurisprudence
