“In furtherance of the social order – the sanctity of the human person shall be recognized and human dignity shall be maintained and enhanced.”

(Section 17 (2) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended).

INTRODUCTION

Government is usually people-oriented, involving the organization of a political unit that exercises authority and also performs certain functions as defined by law, usually on behalf of others. In the real sense of it, the distribution of power for the common good and its performance should dictate the purpose of governance. Consequently, the focus of such authority would be the security of the people and the pursuit of their welfare. Everyone who is under or part of the government should then feel safe and free to go about their lawful duties or activities without fear of harm. This is best summarized in the lucid provisions of section 14 (2) (b) of the Constitution wherein it is stated that ‘the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of the government.’ A very sacred responsibility is then imposed upon those who hold power in trust for others to maintain law and order and guarantee safety of lives and property. As is the case globally, effective security enhances development and economic growth, as no serious investor will risk a volatile environment as an investment destination. In a country like Nigeria where public transportation is still struggling to match universal standards, there should be deliberate government intervention to protect those who patronize the private transport system to commute from one location to the other. The chilling facts of the case of Kofoworola Saheed v The People of Lagos, as reported in [2025] 17 NWLR (Pt. 2016) 353 and published in the 27th October, 2025 edition of the law report, are very heart-rendering in the manner in which they have highlighted the failure of the transport sector and the danger it poses to national security and public safety. Like that of deceased lady Bamise Ayanwole and the Lagos Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) driver, this case dictates the necessity of a regulated regime for the private transport system in Nigeria. There are so many other cases of this or greater magnitude that may not have gained public attention as these gory ones, in which many innocent citizens and even foreigners, have lost (and still lose) their lives to wicked monsters parading themselves as cab drivers and motorcycle riders.

THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Reading through the facts of Saheed’s case so many questions rippled through my troubled mind. For instance, what should she (the appellant) have done in the circumstances of this case? Shout for help while the deceased had a potent weapon of death, in the light of the unequal strength of a hungry cab driver and a possible 22-year-old wild sex hawker tantalizing his wildest imaginations? What is the concomitant effect of unemployment on the rise of social vices on our youths that would push such a young lady to be out alone on the streets in the dead of the night at 2am heading to a night club? Are parents playing their roles well enough to train up their children to be good ambassadors of tomorrow? Perhaps the destination and dressing of the young nightcrawler contributed to trigger the urge of the deceased cab driver but the fact that he possessed a knife already should speak to the case of a likely predator on the loose, though unfortunate that he lost his life in the process. Shouldn’t the girl have just opened the door and run away, as My Lords have suggested in their very lucid verdict? (To be published in Part 2 of this piece). How was she able to stab the driver in multiple places on the neck, in his body and even on his buttocks? Was the male driver drunk or drugged? How was the young girl able to overpower the driver to switch off the car engine? Or was she the one who owned the knife as a ready weapon of defence for her nocturnal kind of trade? And where were the soldiers and security men of the shipping company all along when the dreadful fight was on? So many questions really but I do not question the verdict of the Supreme Court in any manner whatsoever as it represents the law as applicable to the state of the facts and documents presented in evidence.

CITIZENS AS VICTIMS

The case as reported has thrown up a number of issues plaguing our land as a people who desire good governance. The fact remains constant for all seasons that light repels darkness and evil, but when a country’s electricity system has been run aground to make regular power supply the exception rather than the norm, citizens will become helpless victims of failure of governance, as happened to both the appellant and her assailant in this case. Installation of CCTV in well-lit environments would help to reduce crimes no doubt but the fact must be stressed that transport unions must cooperate with the government to maintain verifiable data of all their members. The car hailing system must also be registered and regulated in such a way that vehicles deployed for it can be properly monitored when issues such as happened in this case arise. Furthermore, the failure of active and effective government regulation of the transport system may have allowed the deceased to continue his trade undetected, until he met his unfortunate death. For the appellant, her dirty games drove her to her ultimate destination of perpetrating a heinous crime that will haunt her for the rest of her life that she is spending in prison. What do you think? Do you have your own questions or answers? But please do take out time to read further.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the case as narrated in the Nigerian Weekly Law Reports cited above are that on 30th June 2011, at about 2am in Apapa, Lagos State, one Patrick Obiyan (now deceased), offered the appellant, a 22-year old woman who was on her way to a nightclub in Apapa, a ride in his car. During the ride, the deceased requested the appellant to have oral sex with him by sucking his manhood. The appellant refused and resisted the demand. Then a quarrel ensued between the two in the car. The deceased brought out a knife from his car and threatened the appellant with it to give him oral sex. However, he never used the knife to cause any injury to the appellant. The deceased later drove to a spot in front of one Cornet Shipping Company in Apapa. The deceased switched off the engine of the vehicle and the knife fell from the hand of the deceased to the floor of the car. The appellant succeeded in picking up the knife. She used the knife to stab the deceased severally on his neck, back and buttocks. She then shouted for help which made some soldiers at the area and a security guard in the Cornet Shipping Company to approach the scene. The security guard came to the scene first and saw the lifeless body of the deceased beside the car with the appellant’s clothes full of blood and the knife near her. The security guard called Area B Police Station in Apapa. The police came and arrested the appellant. During the investigation, the appellant made two confessional statements on 30th June 2011 and 7th July 2021. She was later arraigned before the High Court of Lagos State on 26th June 2012 on one-count information for the offence of manslaughter contrary to the provision of section 317(1) of the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State, 2003. She pleaded not guilty to the offence, and the case proceeded to trial. In proof of its case, the prosecution, now respondent, called three witnesses, PW1 - PW3. The PW1 was the security guard at the Cornet Shipping Company. He testified that when he got to the scene of the crime, the cloth of the appellant was full of blood and met the deceased beside his car, already dead. The PW3 corroborated the evidence of PW1, and added that the deceased had a stab of knife at his back, his neck, and buttock. The respondent tendered eleven exhibits, including the confessional statements of the appellant which were admitted as exhibits A and D without objection by the appellant. In exhibits A and D, the appellant admitted explicitly that she stabbed the deceased with the knife. The statements solidified the veracity of the evidence of PW1 and PW3. The knife, the weapon of the offence was also tendered in evidence and admitted as exhibit F. In defence of the case, the appellant testified in person as DW1, and called her mother who testified as DW2. She put up a defence of self-defence in stabbing the deceased severally. In its judgment, the trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence of manslaughter. It convicted and sentenced the appellant to 14 years imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court which dismissed the appeal.