A REVIEW OF THE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF EX-LANCE CORPORAL GODWIN ZAKA VS NIGERIAN ARMY
Introduction
1. EX-LANCE CORPORAL (LCPL) Godwin Zaka was until 29th May2020 when the General Court-Martial Judgment (GCM) in his case was promulgated, a personnel of 231 Battalion of the Nigerian Army. Prior to his trial, he got involved in Criminal conduct and was tried and convicted by GCM at 3 Division Headquarters Nigerian Army, Jos. Having been sentenced to 5- year and 2- year imprisonment respectively on a 2-count charge of abduction and assault respectively, he appealed the judgement to the Jos Division of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the judgment of the GCM. This review intends to inter alia, reiterate the Judicial affirmation of my belief that there is Justice in Military Justice System in Nigeria.
2. Brief Statement of Facts:
Ex-LCPL, Godwin Zaka just dismounted from duty on the day he committed the offence. He then went to the house of PW1, Hayiya Amina Abdullahi and dragged her out at gun-point under the watchful eyes of her husband, the PW2 and her mother-in-law, the PW3. The appellant then abducted her to a secluded area in the bush where he had carnal knowledge of her twice. He was arrested the following day by the military police which investigated and prosecuted him before the GCM where he was arraigned on a 2-count charge of abduction contrary to sections 272 and 273 of the Penal Code Law, Cap 89, Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963 by virtue of Section 114 of the Armed Forces Act (AFA), Cap A 20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. He was also tried for assault, contrary to Section 104 of AFA, 2004. The prosecution called six witnesses and tendered five exhibits including the statement of the Appellant to prove its case. The appellant testified for himself as DW2 and called two other witnesses. The GCM found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to five and two years’ imprisonment respectively, against which judgment he appealed to the Court of Appeal, Jos.
3. Issues for Determination
The appellant formulated a lone issue for determination as follows:
“Whether from the totality of the evidence before the trial General Court-Martial (GCM) the appellant is criminally culpable for the alleged offences or any other offence as alleged by the respondent”
The respondent distilled its own issues as follows:
i. “Whether the respondent had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt warranting the trial GCM to give judgement against the appellant?
ii. Whether the appellant successfully proved the defence of insanity for him not to be convicted in this matter?”
4. Evaluation of Parties’ Submission
The court adopted the issue formulated by the appellant and went ahead to evaluate the parties’submissions in its entirety. Acknowledging the submission of the appellant that though the law imposes a duty on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, whenever a defendant raised a defence of insanity as the appellant has done, the law places the onus of proving the defence on the defendant and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. See STATE V. JOHN (2013) LPELR- 20590(SC). The court equally noted the submission of the appellant that insanity is a blanket term encompassing a variety of mental abnormalities, mental infirmities and psychosis. See ACHUKU V. STATE (2015) 6 NWLR 9PT 1456) at 425. Referring to the evidence of the DW1, a Consultant psychiatrist and the report of his medical evaluation of the appellant’s health (Exhibit G) in which it is stated that the appellant “is a danger to self and others with diagnostic possibilities of borderline disorder , schizoid personality or schizophrenia and severe depressive illness with symptoms of psychosis according to ICD 10” , the court affirmed respondent’s submission that the DW1’s evidence is inconclusive.
5. Juxtaposing the above with the submission of the respondent which described the said DW1’s medical evaluation as inconclusive, not credible and a report of what the appellant had told him, the court of appeal stated that “the defence of insanity raised by the appellant is a desperate attempt to escape justice. The court noted that the confessional “extra-judicial statement of the appellant was sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of PW1-PW3. The court berated the appellant” for claiming to have been drunk only to later claim to be insane when the claim of drunkenness failed him under Sections 44 & 52 of the Penal Code and even under Section 64 of AFA which criminalizes drunkenness . Having evaluated all the evidence of the witnesses including:
a. That the appellant dragged the PW1 to a bush where nobody could see them.
b. That the appellant never behaved like a mad man to his superiors with whom he had worked.
c. That the past history and conduct of the appellant immediately preceding the offences charged did not in any way indicate that the appellant was suffering from any form of mental illness,
the court adopted the Supreme court ruling in the case of GUOBADIA V. STATE (2004)6 NWLR (PT. 869) 3600 where it was held that:
“mere evidence that an accused person had mental disorder without showing that the disorder deprived the accused of the capacity to understand what he was doing and to know that he ought not to have done the act which is called in question is no satisfactory evidence of insanity under the law.”
6. Applauding the judgment of the GCM, the Court of Appeal opined that:
“The General Court-Martial was on a firm ground when it rejected the defence of insanity belatedly cooked up by the appellant.” See ADO V. STATE (2020).
Having considered the entire evidence, circumstances and facts of the case, the Court of Appeal finally dismissed the appeal by holding that:
“the defence of insanity which was not proved by the defence could not avail the appellant”.. and “this appeal fails. It is hereby dismissed. The judgment of 3 Division Army General Court-Martial in charge No. 3Div/G1/300/32 delivered on 27th May, 2020 and promulgated on 29th May ,2020 is hereby affirmed.”
7. Conclusion
It is interesting to note that although the charges on which the soldier was tried and convicted were civil offences, the court of appeal duly affirmed the judgment of the GCM and by so doing affirmed once more the exclusive original jurisdiction of the military justice system when it comes to disciplining erring military personnel. It is noteworthy that the exclusive original jurisdiction is provided by sections 123 and 114 of the AFA.
APPEARANCES.
S.O. YAKUBU holding brief of E.M. DODO for the Appellant.
SIMON MOM holding brief of CHIEF PETER OZOAGU for the Respondent.
