PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

Whether the writing is a 'writing threatening to kill' is a matter of construction and, so, of law. Once the writing cannot be held to be one threatening to kill, other factual enquiries, such as an enquiry whether the accused 'knowing the contents thereof, directly or indirectly causes any person to receive' it become unnecessary.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Ayoola, JSC, in Ubanatu v. Commissioner of Police (2000) NLC-691999(SC) at pp. 21–22; Paras E–A.
"Whether the writing is a 'writing threatening to kill' is a matter of construction and, so, of law. Once the writing cannot be held to be one threatening to kill, other factual enquiries, such as an enquiry whether the accused 'knowing the contents thereof, directly or indirectly causes any person to receive' it become unnecessary."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

The determination of whether a writing constitutes a threat to kill is a question of law for the court, not a factual inquiry for the jury. If the writing, properly construed, does not contain a threat to kill, no further investigation is required. The court need not examine whether the accused knew the contents or caused it to be received. This approach streamlines adjudication: legal construction precedes factual determination. Where the writing fails the legal test, the charge must fail regardless of other evidence.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE