Udo Akpan Udofia V. The State (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OPUTA, J.S.C.

On the 19th day of May, 1988, the Court allowed this appeal, ordered a retrial and indicated that reasons for judgment will be given today the 1st day of July, 1988. Hereunder are my reasons.

This case is important because it exposes the laxity and lack of seriousness of some young members of the profession. It mirrors and reflects the general and steady decline in the standard of professional responsibility required of counsel defending an accused person on the gravest of all charges – murder – attracting the death penalty. On the 24th June, 1988, this Court delivered judgment in Sc. 124/1987: Michael Udo Udo v. The State (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 82) 316. There, the counsel defending the accused charged with murder was conspicuously absent when 2 important witnesses testified. His cross-examination on the days he was present was feeble and half-hearted.

When ultimately called upon to deliver his final address all he said was – “I leave the matter to the Court.” That was to my mind a mockery of a defence. But bad as the conduct of the defence in Michael Udo Udo’s case supra was, the case now on appeal is even worse. The Appellant Udo Akpan Udofia was charged with the offence of murder.

He was alleged to have killed his own mother. In every culture the crime of matricide is shocking, revolting and a bit unnatural. Normal people do not go about killing their own mothers. Was the Appellant insane Why did he commit such a heinous and unnatural crime What were his reasons if he was capable of reasoning These are some of the compelling questions which should normally and naturally suggest themselves to the average lawyer called upon to handle the defence in a case like this. These are questions the defence lawyer must seek answers to. And having found those answers, put them across to the Court through effective and purposeful cross-examination or by calling relevant witnesses for the defence.

One Mr. M. O. Uduma of the Legal Aid Council was entrusted with the defence of the accused, Udo Akpan Udofia. The learned trial Judge was very careful not to take any important step in the proceeding in the absence of counsel. So on the 7th of December, 1982, when the Appellant was arraigned before him, the Judge did not as much as record his plea. Rather he caused his Registrar to contact the Legal Aid Council to provide legal representation for the Appellant. Before counsel was provided, the case was adjourned several times. On the 14th of April, 1983, Mr. Uduma of the Legal Aid Council appeared for the Appellant and his plea of Not Guilty was then recorded and the case was adjourned to 13/6/83 for hearing. On the adjourned date, Mr. Uduma appeared but the case could not go on, as prosecution witnesses were not available in Court. The matter was further adjourned to 4/7/83.

On 4/7/83 the Court record read:

“Mr. M. O. Uduma for the Accused not in Court and has not written.”

On 6/7/83 Mr. Uduma was again absent and the learned trial Judge recorded:-

“Principal Registrar to write to Mr. Uduma, Legal Aid Council.”

On the 13/7/83 Mr. Uduma appeared. The Court did not sit and the Clerk of Court adjourned the case to 18/7/83. Again on the 18/7/83 Mr. Uduma for the accused was absent. On the 4/8/83, 11/8/83 and 12/10/83 Mr. Uduma for the defence was on each occasion absent. The case on the last date 12/10/83 was adjourned to 12/1/84. That day, the Court did not sit but the prosecuting Principal State Counsel, Amoo and Mr. Uduma for the defence both appeared. On the 1/3/84 when the Court sat, Mr. Amoo appeared for the State, Mr. Uduma was again absent as usual. On 3/4/84 Mr. Uduma appeared and the Court took the evidence of Police Corporal No. 35561, Fintam Bassey, called as P.W.1. The record of the cross-examination by Mr. Uduma read as follows:-

“xx by Mr. Uduma: yes I met accused in his father’s house where he identified him to me. Accused person appeared quite normal throughout the period of my investigation.”

From the above cross-examination, it would appear that learned defence counsel was laying the foundation for the introduction of evidence touching on the probable insanity of the accused person.

The next hearing date was Monday, 14th May, 1984. One Akpan Udofia Akpan, the father of the Appellant, testified as the 2nd P.W. A lot could have been established through this witness as to the mental history of the Appellant or his ancestors:- R. v. Ashigifuwo (1948) 12 W.A.C.A. 389.: R. v. Inyang (1946) 12 W.A.C.A. 5. In Sanusi v. The State (1984) 10S.C. 166 this Court per Aniagolu, J.S.C., at p.177 observed:-