LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW — Defences — Provocation — Not Available to Accused Who Was Aggressor
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The defence of provocation is not available to an accused person who was himself the aggressor. Where the evidence shows that the accused provoked the quarrel and instigated the fight, there is no basis for the defence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kutigi, JSC, in Ejionwu v. The State (1995) NLC-2101992(SC) at pp. 10–12; Paras. D–B.
"The defence of provocation is not available to an accused person who was himself the aggressor. Where the evidence shows that it was the accused that provoked the quarrel, instigated the fight, and prevented others from stopping it, there is no material upon which to base the defence of provocation. For the defence to succeed, there must be evidence that the accused was deprived of self-control by a wrongful act or insult of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of self-control."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Provocation requires that the accused was provoked, not the provoker. The aggressor cannot claim provocation. The principle applies to all criminal cases. The court must examine who started the fight. The defence is unavailable if the accused instigated the violence. The rule prevents accused persons from using provocation as a shield. The prosecution must prove that the accused was the aggressor. The court will consider the sequence of events. The principle is well-established in common law.