–
MUHAMMEDU GADAM
V.
THE QUEEN
THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL, HOLDEN AT LAGOS, NIGERIA
17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1954
W.A.C.A. NO. 240/1953
2PLR/1954/65 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1954/65 (WACA)
(1954) XIV WACA PP. 442-443
LEX (1954) – XIV WACA 442-443
–
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
FOSTER-SUTTON, P.
VERITY, C.J., NIGERIA,
COUSSEY, J. A.
–
BETWEEN:
MUHAMMEDU GADAM – Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN – Respondent
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
Appeal by convicted person from judgment of Supreme Court
–
REPRESENTATION
Appellant not represented
C. O. Madarikan for the Crown
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – MURDER:– Killing person believed to be a witch – Criminal Code, section 25 – Belief not reasonable
RELIGION AND LAW – MURDER:- Belief in witchcraft – Miscarriage of Appellant’s wife coupled with mortal illness – Attribution of misfortune to bewitchment by two women – Appellant striking the head of one of the women with a hoe-handle in the belief that striking her would destroy the spell – Resulting therefrom – Whether belief not “reasonable” within the meaning of section 25 of the Criminal Code
WOMEN AND CHILDREN LAW:- Women and Justice administration — Elderly woman killed by man for alleged witchcraft practice of wife the said man — How treated
ELDERS AND LAW:- Octogenarian woman murdered for alleged practice of witchcraft — How treated
–
CASE SUMMARY
Section 25 of the Criminal Code provides as follows:
“A person who does or omits to do an act under an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief in the existence of any state of things is not criminally responsible for the act or omission to any greater extent than if the real state of things had been such as he believed to exist.
“The operation of this rule may be excluded by the express or implied provisions of the law relating to the subject.”
Appellant’s wife had a miscarriage and was mortally ill; this he bona fide attributed to her having been bewitched by two women, and he struck one of them on the head with a hoe-handle in the belief that striking her would destroy the spell, of which blows she died. The trial Judge said the belief was not “reasonable” within the meaning of the above section and convicted the appellant of murder. On appeal:-
–
DECISION(S) OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held (dismissing the Appeal) that:
1. Though prevalent, such a belief in witchcraft causing death of another is unreasonable, being fraught as it is with such terrible results.
2. It seems clear that the applicant’s wife really died as a result of an infection caused by a miscarriage, but, her condition was bona fide attributed, by the applicant, to witchcraft actuating him to then kill the deceased.
3. It was not possible to regard the belief of the applicant as “reasonable” within the meaning of section 25 of the Criminal Code (Cap. 42)
Case followed:-
(1) Rex v. Isekwe Ifereonwe, W.A.C.A. Selected Judgments for July-October- December, 1950, p. 79 (Nigeria).
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following judgment was delivered:
FOSTER-SUTTON, P.
The applicant in this case has applied for leave to appeal from a conviction for murder.
The deceased was an elderly woman said to be about 80 years of age. The Crown’s case was that the applicant was labouring under an unreasonable belief that his wife had been bewitched by the deceased woman, Faratu, and another woman named Mario, and that the applicant killed Faratu by striking her several blows with a hoe-handle after she and Mario had denied having put Juju on his wife.
The applicant, who gave evidence on oath at his trial, said, “I struck Faratu believing she was a witch and that striking her would destroy the spell; I did not mean to kill her; that if caught after suffering they would release it. I hit her on the head with this club”.
It seems clear that the applicant’s wife really died as a result of an infection caused by a miscarriage, but, as the learned trial Judge said, her condition was bona fide attributed to witchcraft.
The trial Judge said, rightly we think, that it was not possible to regard the belief of the applicant as “reasonable”, and he cited, in support of that conclusion, the case of Rex v. Isekwe Ifereonwe (1). In that case, which was one of killing as a result of a belief by the accused that he had been bewitched, the Court held that such a belief could not be regarded as “reasonable” within the meaning of section 25 of the Criminal Code (Cap. 42), and they quoted, with approval, a passage from the judgment appealed against, which reads as follows:-
“I have no doubt that a belief in witchcraft such as the accused obviously has is shared by the ordinary members of his community. It would, however, in my opinion be a dangerous precedent to recognise that because of a superstition, which may lead to such a terrible result as is disclosed by the facts of this case, is generally prevalent among a community, it is therefore reasonable. The Courts must, I think, regard the holding of such beliefs as unreasonable and leave it to those who exercise the Royal Prerogative of mercy to say whether the sentence prescribed by law should be mitigated.”
We wish to say that we entirely agree with those observations, and do not doubt that the circumstances of this case will be carefully considered by the proper authority.
The application is refused.
Appeal dismissed.
–