Daniel Madjemu Vs The State (2001)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

WALI, J.S.C.

The appellant. Daniel Madjemu was arraigned before the High Court of the defunct Bendel State sitting in Warri Judicial Division charged with the murder of his wife, Pancake Daniel on or about the 16th day of July, 1984 contrary to section 319 of the Criminal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. At the conclusion of the trial. Omosun J. [as he then was] found him guilty, as charged and sentenced him to death by hanging.

Being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court he appealed against it to the Court of Appeal, Benin Division, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on him. The appellant has now further appealed to this Court.

The facts involved are not in dispute and are therefore as follows:

The appellant and the deceased were husband and wife living at No. 6/7 Arubayi Street, Okumagba Layout, Warri. On the 16th of July 1984 the appellant and the deceased went to bed. Between the hours of 4 a.m. – 5 a.m. the appellant took a cutlass with which he gave his wife fatal cuts including the one on the neck that almost severed the head from the rest of the body. She died from the fatal wounds. All this happened when the victim was asleep.

After killing the deceased the appellant dragged her body from their bedroom to the verandah. He then drove his peugeot car registration No. BD 1121 WA carrying with him a blood stained cutlass to No.5 Enerhen-Effurun Road, Effurun, a distance of about 3 miles where he woke up the father of the deceased and informed him that he had murdered the deceased, his wife. With the help of other members of the compound, the father of the deceased over-powered the appellant, disarmed and arrested him and took him to the Effurun Police Station from where the case was referred to the police station, Warri. Before then the appellant attempted to commit suicide but gave up the attempt.

In compliance with the Rules of this court, the parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. In the appellant’s brief the following two issues were raised-

“1. Whether from the circumstances of this case the defence of insanity was made out and/or available to the appellant under Section 28 of the Criminal Code.

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when they affirmed the decision of the trial court that it was not necessary to conduct a trial within trial before admitting the appellant’s extra-judicial statement.

The respondent also framed two issues in his brief which are in substance identical to the ones framed by the appellant.

The two issues are as follows

“(i) whether from the evidence and circumstances of this case, the defence of insanity was established and available to the appellant.

(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was right when it affirmed the decision of the learned trial Judge that it was not necessary to conduct a trial within trial; before admitting the appellant’s confessional statement in evidence when the appellant merely denied that he wrote the said confessional statement.”

For the purpose of this judgment, I shall adopt the issues framed by the appellant. I shall first deal with Issue 2.

Under issue 2, it was the submission of learned counsel that the trial court was wrong in admitting Exhibit C, the extra-judicial statement made by the appellant, as his voluntary statement, notwithstanding that he denied ever making it. It was also submitted that the Court of Appeal equally erred in its conclusion that Exhibit C was rightly admitted in evidence by the trial court as the question of its voluntariness was made an issue when it was tendered during the trial. Learned Counsel cited and relied on the Queen v. Eguabor (1962) 1 All NLR 287; Godwin Ikpasa v. The State (1981) 9 SC 35 at 39; Dawa Maigida v. The State (1980) 8-11 SC 236; Hassey v. The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.306) 469 at 471; Egboghonome v. The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.306) 383 at 398 and Ehot v. The State (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt.290) 644 at 649 to buttress his submissions.