In the determination of the appeal which was dismissed, the Supreme Court considered the provisions of sections 26 and 286 of the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State 2003, which provide as follows:

“26. If the nature of the assault is such as to reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm, and the person using force by way of defence believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve the person defended from death or grievous harm, it is lawful for him to use any such force to the assailant as is necessary for defence, even though such force may cause death or grievous harm.”

“286. When a person is unlawfully assaulted and has not provoked the assault, it is lawful for him to use such force to the assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault provided that the force used is not intended and is not such as is likely to cause death or grievous harms.”

The Meaning of “manslaughter”

Manslaughter is an unintentional (not premeditated) killing of a human being. Such a killing is not premeditated but accidental in the sense that it was not intentional.

When is a Person Guilty of Manslaughter?

By virtue of section 317 of the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State 2003, any person who unlawfully kills another in such circumstances as not to constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter. For a killing to amount to manslaughter it must not only be unauthorized or unjustified or not excused by law, it must also result from the direct or indirect act of the accused person. In short, the death must be caused by the unlawful act of the accused person. An accused person is guilty of manslaughter if it is proved that he intentionally did an act which was unlawful and dangerous and that the act inadvertently caused the death of the deceased. It is unnecessary to prove that the accused knew that his act was unlawful and dangerous.

The Categories of Manslaughter

The law categorises manslaughter into two species: voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter occurs when a person intentionally kills another but the offence is reduced from murder to manslaughter because of provocation. Involuntary manslaughter occurs where a person causes the death of another under such circumstances that he did not intend to kill and did not foresee death as a probable consequence of his conduct, but there is some blameworthiness, such as gross negligence, in his conduct.

What Prosecution Must Prove to Secure Conviction for the Offence of Manslaughter

For the prosecution to succeed and secure conviction for the offence of manslaughter, it must prove that: (a) the act of the accused was unauthorised or unjustified or not excused; (b) death resulted from the direct or indirect act of the accused by the unlawful act of the accused person; and (c) the death of the deceased was linked to the act of the accused person. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal confirmed the trial court’s employment of circumstantial evidence in finding the appellant guilty of the odious offence of manslaughter.

The Modes by Which Prosecution Can Prove the Ingredients of an Offence

The prosecution has three modes to prove ingredients of an offence. They are by: (a) confessional statement; (b) circumstantial evidence; or (c) evidence of eye witness. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal’s invitation of circumstantial evidence was not offensive to the law.

What “Offence” Connotes

Offence connotes an illegal act or a crime. It is a violation of a law for which a penalty is prescribed. It is an act that is prohibited by the lawful authority of the state. In the instant case, the dastard act of stabbing with a knife which the appellant unleashed on the deceased, was a pessimi exempli of unauthorised act or conduct which is condemnable by the penal law. The appellant admitted explicitly that she stabbed the deceased with the knife. To stab someone with a knife is an assault, an offence which falls squarely within the wide landscape of criminality. By the same token, it was an overt act that constituted an ample demonstration and satisfaction of actus reus vis-à-vis the offence of manslaughter charged against the appellant.

Whether Intention to Kill or Cause Grievous Bodily Harm is Necessary in Proof of Involuntary Manslaughter

Intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm is unnecessary in proof of the offence of involuntary manslaughter. What is important is that the accused’s unlawful act caused the death of the deceased.

What “Intention” Connotes

Intention connotes the purpose or design with which an act is done. It is the foreknowledge of the act coupled with the desire of such foreknowledge. In the instant case, the appellant’s intention could be garnered from the dangerous instrument, knife, used to abort the life of the deceased.

The Relevance of Intention to Criminal Responsibility

Criminal responsibility turns on intention. A man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act. In the instant case, the natural consequences of stabbing a knife on a person, at the neck, back and bottom, critical regions of the body, with the concomitant blood oozing out therefrom, was to terminate his life or, at least, cause him grievous bodily hurt. In the mind of law, the appellant was deemed to have intended to abrogate the priceless life of the deceased prematurely by the gruesome act with the massive haemorrhage accompanying the invidious act.

When Self-defence Available

By virtue of section 26 of the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State 2003, if the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm, and the person using force by way of defence believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve the person defended from death or grievous harm, it is lawful for him to use any such force to the assailant as is necessary for defence, even though such force may cause death or grievous harm.

When Self-defence Available

By virtue of section 286 of the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State 2003, when a person is unlawfully assaulted and has not provoked the assault, it is lawful for him to use such force to the assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault provided that the force used is not intended and is not such as is likely to cause death or grievous harm.

Constitutional Guarantee of Right to Life and When can be Deprived:

By virtue of section 33 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), every person has the right to life, which shall not be deprived him intentionally save under reasonable necessity for the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the defence of property.

Nature and Scope of Defence of Self-defence

The defence of self-defence traces its paternity to the Constitution, the fons et origo of all laws, and is propagated firmly in our criminal jurisprudence. The defence of self-defence is a complete defence in that it exculpates an accused from culpability. It avails an accused person even in the face of prosecution’s proof of the case beyond reasonable doubt. It connotes a plea of justification for use of force to protect oneself, one’s family, or one’s property from a real or threatened attack. It is rampant in criminal homicide. Every person is justified in using reasonable force to defend himself and those under his care, but the force justifiable is such only as is reasonably necessary. Self-defence is a special plea which arises only in the case where a man admits that he did deliver blows alleged, but that they were delivered because the other man attacked him first. If there is no cruel excess, or anything of that type, then it becomes complete exculpation. The defence of self-defence warrants only measures which are proportional to an armed attack and necessary to respond to it. In this context, proportionality means that the response to an armed attack must be reflective of the scope, nature and gravity of the attack itself.

The Implication of the Defence of Self-defence

An erection of the defence of self-defence by an accused implies an admission of the offence.

When Accused is Entitled to the Defence of Self-defence:

An accused person does not reap the statutory defence of self-defence ex debito justitiae. There are certain conditions that must co-exist before an accused is entitled to the complete defence. They are: the accused must not have brought the (a) encounter; there must be an impending peril/danger to life or bodily harm, either real or so apparent, as to create an honest belief of an (b) existing necessity; there must be no safe or escape route by (c) retreat; and there must have been a necessity for taking (d) life. The defence of self-defence or defence of others is available only while the threat is ongoing. After the threat has ended, the use of force is no longer appropriate. This would be considered an act of retaliation, as opposed to self-defence. In this case, to all intents and purposes, there was a glaring absence of the conjunctive elements of self-defence to the offence of manslaughter levelled against the appellant as to warrant the appellant to benefit from the beneficent from the defence. The lower court’s finding was in total alignment with the tenets of criminal law. To this end, all the diatribes, which the appellant rained against the impeccable finding, were idle and pale into significance.