CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER THE NIGERIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE

Abstract

Criminal sanction is the most serious censure the State can impose on an individual and the imposition of criminal sanction for doing nothing sound bizarre. This article examines the circumstances under which a person can be held criminally liable for acting as well as for an omission under the Nigerian criminal jurisprudence. At common law, criminal liability for pure omission is exceptional. However, all systems of criminal law seem to include offences of omission, especially where there is a legal duty. The paper shows that criminal liability will not be imposed or slammed on a person except the person breached the standard approved behaviour by the law. The paper demonstrates that in addition to actus reus and mens rea, two other elements are essential for criminal liability viz, concurrence and causation. Causation under the Nigerian criminal jurisdiction has two dimensions namely factual cause, ‘but for cause’ and legal cause, also called proximate cause. In causation, many events or causes can intervene to break the chains of causation and in consequence absolve the first defendant of criminal liability. To exonerate the defendant, the victim’s conduct must not only be a cause of his injury, it must be a superseding cause. The victims conduct will not break the causal chain to absolve the defendant or actor unless the victim’s conduct is so ‘extraordinary’. The one year rule limitation period after which the defendant may be exonerated from criminal liability is no longer tenable in other climes, especially in Britain where we inherited the rule. Accordingly, it should be expunged from our criminal jurisprudence.