Skip to content 
INTRODUCTION
Human beings plan and carry out crimes of various degrees. However, if they were being prosecuted, they would rely on a few defenses to either defend the crime or persuade the judge to give them a less severe punishment for what they had done. This problem is not unique to the circumstances in Nigeria. It is true that doing a criminal act (actus reus) requires having a guilty thought (mens rea). Could a criminal be exonerated from criminal accountability if he fulfills his illegal objectives but, for example, drinking has significantly affected his mental state and caused him to lose his sense of judgment before and/or at the time of the crime? Would someone be guilty or not if they consume drugs on their own volition and go on to conduct a crime, even though they may try to use their intoxication defense at trial to deny the mens rea element? Is intoxication, in reality, a defense under Nigerian criminal law, and if so, how does it work? How would the courts respond if someone brought up intoxication and used it as a defense against a charge? This article will attempt to offer answers to the above questions by analysis our criminal law legislations.
MEANING OF INTOXICATION
When a person consumes narcotics, stimulants, or alcohol, their state of mind is significantly affected, making it harder for them to behave with their full physical and mental potential. This is referred to as being intoxicated. In general, being intoxicated does not serve as a defense against a crime per se. However, in certain cases, when someone is intoxicated from drugs or alcohol and commits a crime, their degree of intoxication may be sufficient to keep them from possessing the essential mens rea. In determining whether the offender can utilize his intoxication to negate the mens rea of acts with particular purpose, public policy is a major determining factor. It is obviously not in the public interest for criminals to escape liability simply by saying that they were so drunk that they did not know what they were doing. This is often seen as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating factor, particularly where the defendant put himself in that position.
Therefore, an individual who has consumed an intoxicating substance is said to be intoxicated when they are unable to use their normal bodily or mental faculties. This prevents them from acting in a way that a sober man in complete control of his senses would act in a comparable situation. The degree of intoxication must be such that the person is unable to create the required purpose. An intoxicant is defined as a drug that, when consumed by a user, impairs that user’s capacity to utilize his senses normally or to reason coherently. Intoxicants could be alcohol, psychotropic drugs, opiates, barbiturates, and stimulant. But may, in principle, also apply to any other chemicals that have the potential to make a user intoxicated and change their awareness, sense of judgment, and cognitive functions.
NIGERIAN CRIMINAL LAW ON INTOXICATION
Before delving into the examination of intoxication under the relevant laws in Nigeria, it is vital to identify the threshold of when an individual is intoxicated. Any time a person is influenced by a substance that impairs judgment, such as alcohol, strong drugs, or a combination of the two, they are considered intoxicated. When a person consumes intoxicants, it causes them to lose firm control over their faculties. As a result, they are unable to act in a way that a normally sober, cautious, and prudent man in full possession of his senses would act in a similar situation. This condition is known as intoxication. According to Section 29(5) of the Criminal Code, a state brought on by narcotics or drugs is considered to constitute a form of drunkenness.
The Code simply states that using narcotics or strong substances can result in intoxication. We humbly suggest that it would seem that the draftsman did not include alcohol in the list of substances that, when consumed, might cause intoxication. However, it seems to the drafters that alcohol counts as an intoxicating drug because it has the ability to make its user intoxicated. Under the Criminal Code[1] intoxication is not a defence to criminal liability. Its implication is that it is not per se excusable under the law except where some conditions exist that may afford a culprit the opportunity to rely on it as a defence. Section 29 (1) of the Code states thus:‘Save as provided in this section, intoxication shall not constitute a defence to any criminal charge’. Section 29 (2) provides that ‘intoxication shall be a defence to any criminal charge if by reason thereof, the person charged at the time of the act or omission complained of did not know that such act or omission was wrong or did not know what he was doing and-
(a) The state of intoxication was caused without his consent by the malicious or negligent act of another; or
(b) The person charged was by reason of intoxication insane, temporarily or otherwise, at the time of such act or omission.
The Criminal Code provides that if a defendant establishes that he was intoxicated in line with the clear letters of section 29 (2) (a), and upon proof beyond any iota of doubt to the satisfaction of the Court, he shall be discharged. A defendant may also lean on section 29 (2) (b) (i), if by reason thereof, the defendant, at the time of the act, did not know that what he has done is wrong, or that he did not know what he was doing at the time of his doing the act or wrong complained of. Where a defendant was reduced to an insane person by reason of intoxication, which case falls within the purview of section 29 (2) (b) (ii) of the Code, and upon careful and proper checks made on him to ascertain that he is insane to the satisfaction of the court, the court may order that the defendant be remanded in a lunatic asylum, and at the pleasure of the Governor of the State.
Intoxication is a factual matter that requires supporting documentation. The onus of proving intoxication is with the defendant; but, in order for the defendant to prevail on this defense, the onus must be split, depending on the likelihood of success. He would either demonstrate that, at the time of the alleged wrongdoing, he was incompetent, and the drunkenness was either an involuntary result of his own actions or the result of the careless actions of another person’s. Alternatively, at the time of such act/omission or wrong complained of, the defendant was temporarily insane.
Will Intoxication qualify as an Excuse or Defence from Criminal Liability?
The Criminal Code recognizes that there may be involuntary intoxication as envisaged by the provisions of Section 29 (2) (a). When such is the case, the defendant who may rely on defence of intoxication shall succeed on it. The issue here is how then can one ascertain how involuntary the intoxication may be, taking into account the circumstances which gave rise to the defendant committing the crime? Also, consent or knowledge may imply that defence of intoxication would not stand if the defendant gave his consent having full knowledge of the situation. The Supreme Court in Egbe Nkanu v State held that a defendant cannot be saved from self-induced drunkenness. The court dismissed the appellant’s appeal. In that case, the appellant was successful in convincing the court that he occasionally behaves erratically rather than providing evidence to support the defense of drunkenness. On the day he killed the victim, he willingly drank palm wine. He also claimed to have been intoxicated when he used a machete to slash the victim to death. He did provide evidence to support his claim that he had no idea what he was doing or that the act he committed was illegal. In John Imo v The State the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that: here is the insanity that occurs through natural process without any inducement. There is a disturbance of the mind whereby the accused never knew what he was doing but never appreciated the consequences. This type of insanity is a defence if pleaded and proved. The other type of insanity is the one that is self-induced by an accused person by taking alcoholic drink or other intoxicating and stupefying substance that renders the accused insane for a period because of the effect of the drink or stupefying substance. The substance could be drug like cocaine, cannabis sativa or any of the gaseous substances having intoxicating and stupefying influence on the consumer. In this case, the accused voluntarily without any urge by either in the way of medical prescription or necessity takes the substance and runs into a criminal act. For this, the intoxication is self-induced and it is no defence.
A thin line of distinction has been established by the Court between voluntary and involuntary intoxication. An individual who has had their food or drink poisoned without their knowledge experiences involuntary intoxication. It may, however, also apply in situations where a drug’s effects are unexpected or unanticipated; however, if the defendant simply underestimates the drug’s potency despite knowing that the effect of the intoxicant is expected, the intoxication will remain voluntary. Intoxication is not a defense for crimes involving strict liability. While drinking alcohol may lower inhibitions and cause a defendant to act differently than he would have if he hadn’t been intoxicated, a person arrested and charged with drunk driving will not be able to use this as an excuse for the crime. He may assert the defense of drunkenness, which may be successful, if it can be demonstrated by evidence that he was, in fact, rendered unconscious and that this prevented him from realizing or intending the consequences of his conduct.
THE DEFENCE OF INTOXICATION: POSITION OF THE LAW IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND SOUTH AFRICA
In terms of the indigenous laws and practices that govern them, each of the many communities and ethnic groupings that comprise Nigeria has always had its own distinctiveness. Common law prohibited drunkenness as an offense. The Maliki academics of pre-independence Northern Nigeria disagreed with this interpretation of the law, believing that the simple act of consuming alcohol constitutes an offense (Shurb) in and of itself and is prohibited by the different Sharia Penal Codes of the core northern states. Before the British colonialists and Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 introduced the Penal Code of Northern Nigeria, it was considered a customary offense in the North and was penalized by law. In order to make the
Criminal Procedure Act and Criminal Procedure Code relevant throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria, ACJA aims to unite them. It is illegal to be an alcoholic in Shari’a law. It’s possible that those who saw the offender act don’t have to provide direct testimony. Under the local laws of the villages in the southern part of Nigeria, alcohol use was never considered a criminal offense. It is accepted that drinking and having fun are typical aspects of social life. Since the Criminal Code went into effect, intoxication brought on by the use of alcohol, marijuana, or other substances does not automatically absolve a perpetrator of their crimes, unless the accused was so impaired that they were unable to think clearly or form a guilty mentality, which in turn caused them to commit the act that was reported. Should the defendant knowingly and willingly use drugs and then proceed with the alleged offense, he would not be in compliance with the Criminal Code’s prohibitions.A thorough examination of intoxication would show that several countries outside of Nigeria share a similar characteristic, namely that intoxication is not a defense for a crime and does not absolve the guilty. The defendant cannot use drunkenness as a defense or to get off easy with a less sentence if the intoxication was self-induced with the express intent to commit a crime or other wrong. The defendant may rely on the defense of drunkenness if he or she is the victim of substance misuse and is unable to develop the essential purpose to conduct a crime, provided that there is unmistakably no intention formed to perform the claimed act.
United States of America’s Perspective
In some US states, voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct, but it can be used under limited circumstances to negate the intent. There is a further distinction between general intent crimes, where the accused intends merely to perform an action but not necessarily the one that resulted, and specific intent crimes, which require proof that the actor intended to perform the specific criminal act charged. Voluntary intoxication, including that resulting from habitual drug or alcohol consumption, is normally not a defense to general intent crimes like assault and battery. However, voluntary intoxication may be used as proof that the defendant did not mean to perform a specific criminal act, such as murder, and can serve as evidence to negative the mental element of specific intent crimes. The voluntary intoxication defence is often asserted in homicide cases to disprove pre-meditation, deliberation, or intent to kill on behalf of the defendant. Involuntary intoxication is the result of coerced intoxication, mistake as to the nature of substance consumed, intoxication from prescribed medication, or pathological intoxication. Under the English common law, it could excuse criminal liability of any resulting actions by the defendant. Some jurisdictions treat involuntary intoxication like temporary madness. While the American law recognizes involuntary intoxication as a separate and distinct excuse which may afford a defendant some measure of immunity; under the German law, intoxication, if acute, is integrated into the framework of insanity.
South African’s Perspective
In the Republic of South Africa, intoxication is a legal defence in criminal matters in certain circumstances. In the first instance, however, a distinction is drawn between self-induced intoxication and situations where the actor became intoxicated as a result of occurrences which he had no control over. Obviously, the person cannot be held accountable for things that he or she has no control over. South African law recognizes intoxication in these situations as a total and competent defence available to the person who was intoxicated while committing a crime. South Africa though a full member of the Commonwealth, incorporated the Roman-Dutch laws into its corpus of laws. In the case of voluntary intoxication, the doctrine of actio libera in causa applies in terms of which the perpetrator who deliberately drugs himself in order to commit a crime is held fully responsible. Where the intoxication is not the result of an intended commission of a crime but does lead to a state of mental disease or incapacity, the normal rules in respect of a defence of mental incapacity may apply.
Where someone is so intoxicated that his or her actions can be regarded as automatic and devoid of any mental control, whatever the result of his or her actions, he or she would not be criminally liable. The defence here is one of automatism. Someone may be so intoxicated as to be unable to appreciate that what he or she is doing is in fact unlawful or wrong. In such instances, the person is held to have lacked sufficient criminal capacity and can therefore not be found guilty of any crime. Where the person is intoxicated but not to the extent that he or she cannot appreciate the unlawfulness of the act, it may still be that such person is too intoxicated to form the required intent to commit the act. Here the perpetrator may not escape liability entirely, as it is possible for lack of intent to amount to negligence, e.g. If X stabs Y while heavily intoxicated, as a result of which Y slumps and dies. X is shown to have been too intoxicated to form the intent to kill Y, but not so drunk that he could not have foreseen that Y may perhaps die as a result of his act. He is therefore guilty of manslaughter, or culpable homicide, but not murder. Where intoxication does not fall under any of the previous situations, the actor does not escape liability, but the state of intoxication, and degree thereof, may have the effect of mitigating the sentence which the trial court may hand down on the concerned culprit.
In instances where the offence with which someone is charged requires only negligence to be proven, it is assumed that while the reasonable person is not someone who never drinks, it is nevertheless negligent of him or her to, for instance, drive a car while being intoxicated, as the reasonable person would appreciate that his or her abilities may be negatively affected by the intake of alcohol. Therefore, the person would also not escape liability. Where you have had sufficient intake of alcohol to materially affect your inhibitions and understanding, it would hardly be just and equitable to punish someone else for your lack of appreciation of the circumstances and situations you find yourself.
The South African appellate court has stated that, as a general rule, drunkenness (intoxication) is not an excuse for the commission of a crime, though it may be a reason for mitigation of punishment. If the drunkenness is not voluntary, and is severe, it is an excuse; that is, if the drunkenness was caused not by the act of the accused person but by that of another, and was such as to make him unconscious of what he was doing, then he would not be held in law responsible for any act done when in that state. If constant drunkenness has induced a state of mental disease, delirium tremens, so that, at the time the criminal act was done, the accused was insane, and therefore unconscious of his act, he is not responsible, but in such a case he can be declared insane. The obvious golden thread that runs through the laws of the aforestated jurisdictions including Nigeria is that intoxication cannot avail as a defence to an accused save in certain circumstances provided in criminal laws of the various countries we have attempted at examining.
CONCLUSION
This paper has succeeded in examining the legal defence of intoxication; whether that can be a defence available to a accused charged for a crime; whether the defendant can be immune from the harsh side of the law in event of default; as well as the attitude of the Courts in determining the criminal culpability of the defendant where he attempts to prove to the trial court that he did the act but it was due to the fact that he was ‘high’ on substance either administered to him or that he voluntarily ingested substances just to muster courage to do the complained act. Will the trial court ever believe the story of the one who in actual sense, voluntarily took alcohol (or hard drugs) to commit a crime, but would come to court to deny same, claiming that he did not know what he was doing at the time of committing the alleged crime? Would the Court also believe the story of a defendant, who is a victim of substance intake, lacking the ability to form the mens rea of a crime for which he is standing trial? Evidence Act places on him the burden to prove that he did not know what he was doing at the time he was doing the unlawful act. This underscores the beauty of our jurisprudence, as he is given the opportunity to defend himself.
Ordinarily, intoxication is not a defence to a criminal charge against a defendant, but it can be relied upon by the defendant if there are circumstances or situations captured in the various national laws, to the effect that the accused did not give his consent; lacked the ability to form the intention to commit a crime; and due to the fact that he did not know what he was doing, he did the act independent of his will. The defence can avail him if he proves that he was drugged against his will or consent; and that intent was basically lacking. The defence of intoxication can provide an effective response to a criminal charge and may lead to an acquittal. However, there are limitations, and it is probably more appropriate to consider intoxication not as a defence as such but relevant to the question or issue as to whether mens rea can be established by the prosecution.
Caveat:
The information above is solely for educational and information purposes and is not meant to serve as legal advice.
For more information contact Lehi Attorneys on
08134699398
