LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW — Defences — Self-Defence — When Defence of Self-Defence Is Not Available
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A young man of 18 charged with the appellant ran away when fighting started, meaning he was not there to explain how deceased was killed. The appellant said only he and deceased were fighting. The trial Judge held that damning admissions in statements raised strong inference of conspiracy to murder.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Amala v. State (2004) NLC-2312002(SC) at pp. 29–33; Paras C–A.
"A young man of 18 years of age who was charged along with the appellant had stated in his evidence that when the appellant and the deceased started fighting he ran away. In other words, he was not there to explain how the deceased was killed. It is important to state also that the appellant had in his own evidence said that the 2nd accused ran away and only two of them, he and the deceased were there fighting. In his judgment the learned trial Judge held as follows:— 'The story as told in the first and second statements by each accused materially differs and conflict with the testimony of 1st and second accused in this trial. However, there are such damning admissions by the 1st and 2nd accused in exhibits A, B, C and D that raise very strong inference that they probably conspired and murdered the deceased.'"
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Self-defence may be unavailable where evidence shows conspiracy to murder or where the accused’s own account contradicts the defence. Running away by one participant indicates absence of necessity for self-defence. The principle applies to criminal law defences. Damning admissions in extra-judicial statements can negate self-defence. The trial court may reject self-defence where proven facts support murder.
