Murder and Manslaughter in Nigerian Criminal Law: The Role of Intention

By P.L Osakwe

■INTRODUCTION

When it comes to criminal cases involving the unlawful killing of a human being, the Nigerian legal system makes an important distinction between murder and manslaughter. Many assume that the mere fact that one person’s act led to the death of another automatically amounts to murder. However, the law does not approach the matter that simplistically. What makes a killing murder is not just the act itself, but the intention of the wrongdoer. Without the required intent, the killing may only amount to manslaughter.

■ The Legal Framework

The distinction between murder and manslaughter is well captured under the Criminal Code Act (applicable in Southern Nigeria) and the Penal Code (applicable in Northern Nigeria).

Murder is defined under section 316 of the Criminal Code. A person is guilty of murder if the unlawful killing is accompanied by intent to cause death or grievous harm, or if the offender knew that death was the probable consequence of their act.

Manslaughter is defined under section 317 of the Criminal Code as any unlawful killing that does not amount to murder.

This distinction rests heavily on the principle of mens rea (the mental element) and actus reus (the physical act).

■ Murder: The Role of Intention

To secure a conviction for murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

1. The deceased is dead.
2. The death was caused by the act of the accused.
3. The accused intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

For example, if A deliberately stabs B in the chest with a knife, knowing it would likely cause death, and B dies, A has committed murder. The decisive factor is the intent to kill or cause grievous harm.

■ Manslaughter: When There is No Intent to Kill

Manslaughter, though still a serious offence, lacks the element of intent to kill. It applies in situations where death results, but the accused did not intend such a consequence.

Example 1: A strikes B during a heated argument, intending only to scare or hurt him slightly. If B dies as a result, A may be guilty of manslaughter, not murder.

Example 2: A doctor, acting negligently during surgery, causes the death of a patient. Although the death was caused by A’s act, the absence of intent makes it manslaughter (specifically, involuntary manslaughter by negligence).

■ Nigerian Case Law

The Nigerian courts have consistently emphasized the role of intention in distinguishing between murder and manslaughter.

In Onyekwe v. State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.72) 565, the Supreme Court held that for murder to be proved, there must be evidence that death was intended or that grievous harm was intended which resulted in death.

The mental element, mens rea, is crucial in sustaining a charge of murder.

■ Why This Distinction Matters

The punishment for murder in Nigeria is death by hanging or firing squad (depending on the state law). Manslaughter, however, attracts a lesser punishment. often a term of imprisonment, which can vary depending on the circumstances.

This shows the law’s recognition that while all unlawful killings are wrong, not all killings are morally or legally the same. Intent is what makes the difference between an act of recklessness or negligence and an act of deliberate malice.

■ Conclusion

The Nigerian criminal justice system rightly insists that not every killing is murder. The actus reus, the act of killing, must be accompanied by the mens rea, the intent to kill or cause grievous harm, before an accused can be convicted of murder. Otherwise, the offence is manslaughter.

Thus, in the eyes of the law, it is not only what you did that matters, but why you did it. Intent is the heartbeat of criminal liability in cases of homicide.