INTRODUCTION

The Holy Books contain several cases of crisis in homes to such dimensions that cannot not be imagined. In the Bible for instance, it is stated in Matthew 10: 36 that ‘a man's foes shall be they of his own household.’ It is therefore not surprising how it has become normal for children of the same parents not to see eye to eye, to the extent of perpetrating violence against themselves. Domestic violence and crimes of passion are on the increase in the land. It used to be very strange to our culture for a husband to kill his wife or vice versa or for a brother to strike his own sister. The gruesome facts of this case are as reported in FRN v Okeke (2025) 16 NWLR (Pt.2011) 293, being part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria as contained in the said law report. This is not peculiar to any gender, tribe or faith but rather a matter that should be regulated by law. There is thus an urgent need for government action that will tame this rising monster.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

Sometime in October 2011, there was an altercation between the respondent and his sister. Their father, the deceased, who was in his bedroom came out and intervened, preventing an escalation of the argument. In the process, the respondent hit their father on the head with a bottle as a result of which the father sustained injuries. The respondent’s father then went by himself to lodge a report against the respondent at the Police Station. The Police Officer at the Police Station took him to the Teaching Hospital in Abuja. He was treated overnight and discharged. After over two weeks of the incident, the deceased suffered a stroke. He was taken to a private hospital, St. Mary’s Catholic Hospital Abuja, where he was attended to and received treatment until he died on 6th November 2011. Subsequently, the respondent was arraigned before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on a charge of culpable homicide punishable with death under section 221 and of the Penal Code. In proof of its case, the appellant called a total of six witnesses and tendered documents marked exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I respectively in evidence. Among the witnesses called by the appellant were the respondent’s sister with whom he had the altercation and who testified as PW1, the investigating police officer who testified as PW2, and a Medical Doctor who testified as PW4. The Medical Doctor (PW4) tendered and explained exhibit G – the medical certificate of death which expressly stated that the cause of death of the deceased was a stroke and the antecedent cause of the stroke was hypertension. The PW4 surmised that emotional instability caused by an assault on the deceased could be a direct or remote cause of the stroke going by the medical history of the deceased who was a known hypertensive. The respondent testified on his own behalf and did not call any witness. The respondent’s extra-judicial statements were also admitted as exhibits E and I. In exhibits E and I, the respondent stated that during the altercation between him and his sister, he wanted to hit his sister with the bottle, but he mistakenly hit his father on his head.

THE JUDGMENTS

In its judgment, the trial court relied on the evidence adduced and the exhibits tendered, including the extra-judicial statements of the respondent, to hold that the death of the deceased was caused by the respondent who accelerated his death by stabbing him on the face. The trial court convicted the respondent as charged and sentenced him to death. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which re-evaluated the evidence on record and held that the trial court was wrong when it held that the deceased died as a result of the head injury inflicted on him by the respondent. The Court of Appeal held that based on the evidence on record, the chain of causation was broken, and that the cause of death of the deceased was not proved beyond reasonable doubt as it was not satisfactorily shown to be traceable to the acts of the respondent. Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent, and discharged and acquitted him. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court which in its unanimous decision, dismissed the appeal.

The Burden and Standard of Proof of Murder:

By virtue of sections 135(1), 139(1), and 140 of the Evidence Act 2011, the burden or onus of proof to establish the offence of murder against an accused person lies squarely on the prosecution. In so doing, the extent of proof adduced must be beyond reasonable doubt. Standard of proof in criminal cases means that every ingredient of the offence must be established so as to leave no reasonable doubt of the guilt of an accused person. This applies to the cause of death in homicide cases where the prosecution must prove with certainty the cause of death and that it is as a result of the act of the accused. Thus, in order to establish a case of homicide, it must be proved, not merely that the act of the accused person could have caused the death of the deceased, but that it did.

The Effect of Failure of Prosecution to Discharge Burden of Proof:

Where the prosecution fails to prove a single ingredient of the offence charged, the burden of proof has not been discharged and the accused person will be entitled to an acquittal. In other words, where the evidence placed before a trial court falls short of fulfilling and/or meeting up with the requirements of the law in respect of the burden and standard of proof, then the case of the prosecution must, without any equivocation, collapse and the accused person deserves an acquittal.

The Meaning of “causation” in Criminal Jurisprudence:

Under criminal jurisprudence, the expression “causation” means proximate cause, legal cause, and direct cause. These terms are used synonymously. Under criminal jurisprudence, the terms “immediate cause”, “effective cause” and “causa causans” are used to signify the last link or connection in the chain of causation. It is, however, possible that there could be an intervening or supervening cause. And an intervening or supervening cause denotes a cause that comes into active operation arising from negligence or the like, even if that cause does not break the chain of causation. The principle of causation dictates that an event is caused by the act proximate to it, in the absence of which the event would not have happened.

The Need to Link Death of Deceased to Act of Accused Person:

Even if the period between the act and the death of the deceased are proximate, a court can still not find the accused person guilty if there is more than one possible cause of death. What is essential is that there must be evidence that the act of the accused person resulted in the death of the deceased. In this case, exhibit G showed the direct cause of death to be Right Hemispheric CVA, while the antecedent cause was Hypertension. Physical assault was referred to as another contributory condition but not related to the disease or condition that caused death. Thus, from the totality of the evidence, the trial court made the right deductions and made a right decision when it held that the deceased died of Right Hemispheric Celebro Vascular accident, a medical term for stroke and hypertension.

Per SANKEY, J. S. C.:

“In consequence, the sum total of all the evidence presented to the trial court failed to link the prior injury inflicted on the head of the deceased to the death of the deceased in any way whatsoever. Thus, the best interpretation that can be given to the medical evidence is that the cause of death of the deceased was a stroke arising from a history of hypertension. Hence, from the incident when the respondent hit the deceased with a bottle on his head, mistakenly or not, to his bout of hypertension and stroke, the chain of causation was broken.”

AREMSON IS GONE!

I seek your kind permission as you draw the curtain on the first part of this piece to share my deep grief on the loss of one of the finest activists that I have met and worked with, Comrade Abiodun Aremu. Courageous, detribalized and ever faithful, Aremson was the epitome of our collective struggle within the labour and civil society coalition. Like Comrades Chima Ubani and my dear friend Comrade Bamidele Aturu, Aremson gave his all to the cause of the masses, working as a foot soldier in mass mobilization, operating as a terror to the oppressor and living as a friend of the downtrodden. My heart has been very heavy since I got to know of his painful demise early Monday morning on October 13, 2025. Rest in power, my dear Comrade Fidelista Abiodun Aremu, assured that your struggles will not be in vain.