By Awa Kalu, SAN

Before we advert to the decisions of the Supreme Court on those crucial issues in the 1979 Constitution which have since continued to reverberate by virtue of similar provisions of the 1999 Constitution, a reflection on the facts of John Agbo v. The State, (2007) 2 NCC 158 and the decision of the Supreme Court thereon, will guide the discerning in appreciating the likely turn of events in Oscar Pistorious’ trial to the deceased and asked him why he blocked the road with his car.

An argument ensued between the Appellant and the deceased. It was in the course of the argument that the appellant was said to have shot the deceased with his pistol which he was carrying with him. The Appellant gave evidence for himself and called no witness.

The Appellant’s case was that there was a struggle, between him and the deceased and it was during the struggle, that the deceased wanted to take possession of his pistol and in the process, his gun was accidentally fired and the bullet from his gun, hit the deceased. In effect, his defence was “accidental discharge”. The learned trial Judge held that the prosecution had proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. His Lordship rejected the defence of accident. He convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to death by hanging. Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which the decision of the High Court. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court”.

Crucial principles

The crucial principles of criminal law which the Supreme Court confirmed (and of which a lot will be heard later in the Oscar Pistorious trial are that: (a) “A piece of evidence contradicts another when it affirms the opposite of what that other evidence has stated, not when there is just a minor discrepancy between them.

It is useful to bear in mind the fact that the word “contradict” comes from two Latin words contra (opposite) and dicere (to stay). Two pieces of evidence contradict one another when they are themselves inconsistent. On the other hand, a discrepancy may occur when a piece of evidence stops short of, or contains a little more than, what the other piece of evidence says or contains a little more than, what the other piece of evidence says of contains some minor differences in details” (b) Proof beyond reasonable doubt, does not mean proof beyond a shadow of doubt, as stated by Denning J, in the case of Miller v. Minister of Pensions 1947 2 All E.R. page 372 when he said.

“Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentences “of course it is possible, but not in the least probable,” the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice.” (c) Situations like this whereby policemen rashly bright out their guns, (Albeit to merely threaten or frighten citizens) is rapidly becoming rampant.

They are meant to use the guns to safeguard the lives of the citizenry they are paid to protect, but the reverse is the case. A policeman will not hesitate to pull the trigger of his gun at the slightest provocation, and would indeed do that with relish but fatal. The incident in the instant case is a locus classicus”.