The Complexity of Domestic Violence and Legal Implications
The Holy Books contain several cases of crisis in homes that have escalated to unimaginable levels. In the Bible, for instance, it is stated in Matthew 10:36 that “a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” This highlights how it has become normal for children of the same parents not to see eye to eye, sometimes leading to violence against themselves. Domestic violence and crimes of passion are on the rise, which used to be very strange in our culture. A husband killing his wife or vice versa, or a brother striking his sister, was once unthinkable.
This issue is not limited to any specific gender, tribe, or faith but requires regulation by law. There is an urgent need for government action to address this growing problem. The case of FRN v Okeke (2025) 16 NWLR (Pt.2011) 293 illustrates the complexity of such situations, as it was part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
The Facts of the Case
Sometime in October 2011, there was an altercation between the respondent and his sister. Their father, the deceased, intervened, preventing the argument from escalating. In the process, the respondent hit their father on the head with a bottle, causing injuries. The father then went to the Police Station to lodge a report. The police took him to the Teaching Hospital in Abuja, where he was treated overnight and discharged.
After over two weeks, the deceased suffered a stroke and was taken to St. Mary’s Catholic Hospital in Abuja, where he received treatment until he died on 6th November 2011. Subsequently, the respondent was arraigned before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on a charge of culpable homicide punishable with death under section 221 of the Penal Code. The prosecution called six witnesses and tendered documents marked exhibits A through I. Among them were the respondent’s sister, the investigating police officer, and a medical doctor.
The medical doctor (PW4) explained exhibit G – the medical certificate of death, which stated that the cause of death was a stroke, with hypertension as the antecedent cause. The doctor surmised that emotional instability caused by an assault could be a direct or remote cause of the stroke, given the deceased’s history of hypertension. The respondent testified on his own behalf and did not call any witnesses. His extra-judicial statements were also admitted as exhibits E and I.
The Judgments
In its judgment, the trial court relied on the evidence and exhibits, including the respondent’s extra-judicial statements, to hold that the death of the deceased was caused by the respondent, who accelerated his death by stabbing him on the face. The trial court convicted the respondent and sentenced him to death. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which re-evaluated the evidence and held that the trial court was wrong in its conclusion. The Court of Appeal found that the chain of causation was broken and that the cause of death was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and sentence, discharging and acquitting the respondent. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal.
Burden and Standard of Proof of Murder
Under sections 135(1), 139(1), and 140 of the Evidence Act 2011, the burden of proof for murder lies with the prosecution. The extent of proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. In criminal cases, every ingredient of the offence must be established so that there is no reasonable doubt about the accused person’s guilt. This applies to the cause of death in homicide cases, where the prosecution must prove with certainty that the cause of death resulted from the act of the accused.
The Effect of Failure of Prosecution to Discharge Burden of Proof
If the prosecution fails to prove a single ingredient of the offence, the accused person will be entitled to an acquittal. If the evidence falls short of meeting legal requirements, the prosecution’s case must collapse, and the accused deserves an acquittal.
The Meaning of “Causation” in Criminal Jurisprudence
In criminal jurisprudence, “causation” refers to proximate, legal, and direct causes. These terms are used synonymously. An intervening or supervening cause can affect the chain of causation, even if it does not break it entirely. The principle dictates that an event is caused by the act proximate to it, in the absence of which the event would not have happened.
The Need to Link Death of Deceased to Act of Accused Person
Even if the period between the act and the death of the deceased is proximate, a court cannot find the accused guilty if there is more than one possible cause of death. Evidence must show that the act of the accused resulted in the death of the deceased. In this case, exhibit G showed the direct cause of death to be Right Hemispheric CVA, while the antecedent cause was Hypertension. Physical assault was referred to as another contributory condition but not related to the disease or condition that caused death.
Per SANKEY, J. S. C.
“In consequence, the sum total of all the evidence presented to the trial court failed to link the prior injury inflicted on the head of the deceased to the death of the deceased in any way whatsoever. Thus, the best interpretation that can be given to the medical evidence is that the cause of death of the deceased was a stroke arising from a history of hypertension. Hence, from the incident when the respondent hit the deceased with a bottle on his head, mistakenly or not, to his bout of hypertension and stroke, the chain of causation was broken.”
Aremzo Is Gone!
I seek your kind permission as you draw the curtain on the first part of this piece to share my deep grief on the loss of one of the finest activists that I have met and worked with, Comrade Abiodun Aremu. Courageous, detribalised and ever faithful, Aremzo was the epitome of our collective struggle within the labour and civil society coalition. Like Comrades Chima Ubani and my dear friend Comrade Bamidele Aturu, Aremzo gave his all to the cause of the masses, working as a foot soldier in mass mobilisation, operating as a terror to the oppressor and living as a friend of the downtrodden. My heart has been very heavy since I got to know of this painful demise early Monday morning on October 13, 2025. Rest in power, my dear Comrade Fidelista Abiodun Aremu, assured that your struggles will not be in vain.
