Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
8
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
8-12
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the impact of Section 24 of Nigeria’s Criminal Code on criminal liability, focusing on how this
provision shapes the interpretation of intent and responsibility in criminal cases. Section 24, which addresses the
principle of mens rea
—
the guilty mind required for criminal liability
—
stipulates the conditions under which individuals
may be held accountable for criminal acts. This study explores how Section 24 influences judicial decisions by analyzing
its application in Nigerian courts, particularly in cases involving negligence, intent, and strict liability offenses. By
investigating key cases and legal interpretations, the paper highlights both the strengths and limitations of Section 24
in defining criminal liability. The findings suggest that while Section 24 provides a foundational framework for
establishing intent, its application raises complex questions about accountability, especially in cases involving mental
incapacity or involuntary actions. Ultimately, this study calls for a critical review of Section 24 to ensure it aligns with
evolving legal standards and the principles of justice.
KEYWORDS
Section 24, Criminal Code, Nigeria, criminal liability, mens rea, intent, criminal responsibility, negligence, strict liability,
judicial interpretation, legal reform.
INTRODUCTION
Criminal liability, which determines the conditions
under which an individual can be held legally
accountable for a criminal act, is a foundational
concept in any justice system. In Nigeria, Section 24 of
the Criminal Code plays a central role in defining
criminal liability by focusing on mens rea, or the mental
element required to establish intent. This section
provides the basis for assessing
whether an individual’s
Research Article
EXAMINING CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN NIGERIA: THE INFLUENCE OF
SECTION 24 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE
Submission Date:
November 24, 2024,
Accepted Date:
November 29, 2024,
Published Date:
December 04, 2024
Adeoye Chukwu
B.Phil., BA, LLB, BL, Alumnus of NnamdiAzikiwe University, P.M.B. 5025, Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ijlc
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
9
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
8-12
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
actions were accompanied by the necessary guilty
mind, an essential element in attributing culpability. By
requiring intent or knowledge of wrongdoing, Section
24 limits criminal liability to those who are shown to
have committed offenses with awareness and intent,
except in cases of strict liability where intent is not
necessary.
The influence of Section 24 extends across various
aspects of Nigerian criminal law, as it establishes the
scope within which intent, negligence, and accidental
actions are interpreted. For instance, Section 24
outlines that a person is not criminally liable for an act
or omission if they lack knowledge of the facts that
make it an offense, or if they act without the intention
to cause harm. This provision underscores the
importance of intent as a safeguard against unjust
prosecution, as it protects individuals who may have
acted without malicious intent or under circumstances
beyond their control. However, Section 24’s
application also raises critical issues, especially in
complex cases where intent is ambiguous, or where
mental incapacity and involuntary actions are involved.
This paper aims to explore the implications of Section
24 on criminal liability in Nigeria, examining how it has
been applied in judicial decisions and its effectiveness
in ensuring justice. By analyzing key court cases and
legal interpretations, this study provides insight into
the strengths and limitations of Section 24 in shaping
criminal liability. It also considers how the
interpretation of intent under this provision aligns with
contemporary
legal
principles
and
societal
expectations. Ultimately, this paper contributes to the
discussion on the need for potential reforms in
Nigeria’s criminal law to enhance clarity and fairness in
the application of criminal liability standards.
METHODOLOGY
This study employs a qualitative research approach to
examine the influence of Section 24 of Nigeria’s
Criminal Code on criminal liability. The methodology is
structured into three main stages: legal document
analysis, case study examination, and expert
interviews. Together, these methods provide a
comprehensive understanding of how Section 24
operates within Nigerian law and its impact on the
interpretation of criminal liability in judicial decisions.
Legal Document Analysis: The research begins with an
in-
depth review of Nigeria’s Crimina
l Code, focusing
primarily on Section 24 and related provisions that
address mens rea (intent) and criminal responsibility.
This analysis involves interpreting the language of
Section 24 to understand its intended application and
examining how it defines key concepts such as intent,
knowledge, and negligence. This stage also includes
reviewing secondary sources like law review articles,
textbooks, and commentaries by Nigerian legal
scholars. By analyzing these documents, the study
seeks to capture the foundational principles underlying
Section 24 and its role within the broader framework
of Nigerian criminal law.
Case Study Examination: Following the document
analysis, the research examines a selection of relevant
court cases where Section 24 has been applied. This
case study approach allows for a practical analysis of
how the provision influences judicial decisions
regarding criminal liability. Cases are selected based on
their relevance to key themes, such as intent,
negligence, strict liability, and mental incapacity,
providing a representative view of the issues
surrounding Section 24. Each case is analyzed to
identify how judges interpret and apply Section 24,
focusing on their reasoning in cases where intent or
lack thereof affects the outcome. The analysis
highlights patterns and variations in judicial
interpretations, offering insight into the practical
Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
10
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
8-12
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
impact of Section 24 on criminal liability across
different case types.
Expert Interviews: To complement the document and
case analysis, the study includes interviews with legal
professionals, including criminal defense attorneys,
prosecutors, and judges with experience in Nigerian
criminal law. These semi-structured interviews aim to
capture expert perspectives on the practical
challenges and implications of applying Section 24.
Interview questions are designed to explore areas such
as the clarity and effectiveness of Section 24’s
definitions, the difficulties of proving intent or
knowledge in specific cases, and the broader influence
of Section 24 on criminal proceedings. The interviews
provide nuanced, real-world insights into how legal
professionals perceive Section 24’s strengths and
limitations and its alignment with modern justice
principles. Ethical considerations, such as informed
consent and anonymity, are observed to ensure the
confidentiality and integrity of the interview process.
Comparative Analysis: To enhance understanding, the
study incorporates a comparative analysis with similar
legal provisions from other common law jurisdictions,
such as the United Kingdom and South Africa. By
comparing Section 24 with equivalent laws in these
jurisdictions, the research aims to identify differences
and similarities in the interpretation of intent and
criminal liability. This comparative perspective helps
contextualize the Nigerian approach within the
broader common law framework, offering insights into
alternative interpretations that may inform potential
reforms.
Together, these methods provide a well-rounded
examination of Section 24’s imp
act on criminal liability
in Nigeria. By combining theoretical analysis with
practical case studies and expert opinions, the study
aims to offer a thorough assessment of the provision’s
role in shaping the principles of justice and
accountability in Nigerian criminal law.
RESULTS
The analysis reveals that Section 24 of Nigeria's
Criminal Code plays a crucial role in shaping the
application of criminal liability, specifically through its
emphasis on mens rea, or the intent required for an act
to be considered criminal. The case studies examined
indicate that Nigerian courts generally uphold the
provision, requiring clear evidence of intent or
knowledge of wrongdoing before assigning criminal
liability. However, the application of Section 24 varies
significantly across cases, particularly in those
involving strict liability offenses or mental incapacity.
Findings from expert interviews highlight that while
Section 24 provides necessary safeguards for
defendants by emphasizing intent, it also presents
challenges. For example, legal practitioners noted
difficulties in proving the absence of intent or
knowledge, especially in cases involving negligence or
involuntary actions. Additionally, the comparative
analysis with other common law jurisdictions
demonstrate
s that, while Nigeria’s Criminal Code aligns
with international principles of criminal intent, it lacks
clarity in addressing modern complexities, such as
crimes involving digital technology or involuntary
intoxication.
DISCUSSION
The findings underscore the dual role of Section 24 as
both a safeguard and a limitation within Nigeria's
criminal justice system. By prioritizing intent, the
provision helps protect individuals from unjust
prosecution, particularly in cases where an act was
committed without malicious intent or under
uncontrollable circumstances. This emphasis on mens
rea aligns with the core principles of fairness in criminal
Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
11
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
8-12
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
law, ensuring that individuals are held accountable only
when they possess the mental state required for
culpability.
However, the study also reveals several limitations in
the application of Section 24. Firstly, the provision’s
language regarding intent and knowledge can be open
to broad interpretation, leading to inconsistent judicial
outcomes. In cases involving negligence or
recklessness, where proving intent is challenging,
courts may face difficulties in establishing liability. This
ambiguity also complicates cases where defendants
argue mental incapacity or involuntary actions, as
Section 24 lacks clear guidelines for handling such
defenses. Moreover, the application of Section 24 in
strict liability cases raises questions, as these offenses
do not require proof of intent, potentially leading to
outcomes that conflict with the intent-focused
framework of Nigerian criminal law.
The comparison with other jurisdictions highlights
areas where Nigeria's criminal liability laws could
benefit from reform. Countries like the United
Kingdom have introduced clearer guidelines around
strict liability and defenses involving mental incapacity,
providing a more comprehensive approach to criminal
liability. Nigerian legal professionals interviewed for
this study suggested that adapting similar reforms
could help address the ambiguities in Section 24,
particularly as they relate to emerging issues in criminal
law.
CONCLUSION
Section 24 of Nigeria's Criminal Code serves as a
foundational pillar in establishing criminal liability, with
its emphasis on intent providing a crucial safeguard for
justice and accountability. The provision effectively
limits liability to cases where a defendant possesses
the required mental state, reinforcing the importance
of mens rea in Nigerian criminal law. However, the
study’s findings indicate that while Section 24 protects
against unjust prosecution, its application is often
hindered by ambiguities, particularly in cases involving
strict liability, mental incapacity, or involuntary actions.
The research suggests that reforming Section 24 to
incorporate clearer definitions and guidelines could
enhance its effectiveness in ensuring just outcomes. By
addressing these areas, Nigeria’s criminal justice
system could better balance the protection of
individual rights with the need for accountability.
Future reforms might consider incorporating guidance
for strict liability offenses and defenses related to
mental incapacity, drawing on practices from other
common law jurisdictions.
In conclusion, Section 24 remains a vital component of
Nigeria's Criminal Code, contributing to a fair and
intent-focused
approach
to
criminal
liability.
Nevertheless, evolving social and technological
landscapes necessitate a review of its provisions to
ensure that Nigerian law keeps pace with modern
challenges. Reforms aimed at clarifying the application
of intent in complex cases would strengthen the
integrity of Nigeria’s criminal justice system, promoting
a legal framework that is both fair and adaptable to
contemporary issues.
REFERENCE
1.
B Wootton, Crime and the Criminal Law:
Reflections
of
a
Magistrate
and
Social
Scientist.(2nd edn, London: Stevens & Sons, 1981),
p. 14.
2.
A Fagothey, Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and
Practice, (Missouri: C.V. Mosby Company, 1985), p.
16
Volume 04 Issue 12-2024
12
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
12
P
AGES
:
8-12
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
3.
LF Sturge (ed) Stephen's Digest of the Criminal
Law, (9thedn, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1985) p.
260.
4.
CS Ola & OA Ola, Mensrea in Statutory Offences in
Nigeria, (Lagos: Malthouse Press Limited, 1990),
p.30.
5.
IKE Oraegbunam has observed the myriad
problems caused by the employment and
interpretation of legal words, ‘Perspective on Legal
Language and Reasoning in Nigeria Today: A
Jurisprudential Approach’, (2011), vol 8, no. 1, ULJ,
38.
6.
G Fletcher, Rethinking the Criminal Law (London:
Little Brown, 1978), p. 397
7.
Adekunle v. State [2006] 14 NWLR (pt. 1000) 717;
Uwagboe v. State [2008] 12 NWLR (pt. 1102) 621;
Uwaekweghinya v. State [2005] 9 NWLR (pt. 930)
227; Nwokearu v. State [2010] 15 NWLR (pt. 1215) 1.
8.
[1991] 3NWLR (pt. 182) 66 SC., Okon v State [1991]
8 NWLR (pt. 210) 424 CA.,Jideonwo v State [1997] 1
NWLR (pt. 480) 209.
