by Idoko Saddam Ifeanyi
According to Wikipedia, a principal offender in a crime is an actor who is primarily responsible for a criminal offence.
In criminal law, offences may be committed by a principal offender but the law will go a long way towards pouncing its paws on other persons who may be seen by a layman to have had a remote influence in the commission of the offence.
This is not unconnected to the reason that if the lady Justitia was to cast her eyes away from certain influences of some ‘distant’ actors in a crime and leave them scot-free, inspectivity in justice rendition would not be attainable and there will be high probability that the society will be a hotbed of criminal evasion and inordinate circumvention. Thus, Section 7(a–d) of the Criminal Code Act makes a comprehensive enlistment of the categories of these offenders who may be liable as principal offenders.
While section 7(a) states that a principal offender is every person who actually does the act or makes the omission which constitutes the offence, the law takes a mischief-rule approach to extend the liability inherent in the section.
The intricacy may arise in a situation whereby a man actually does the criminal act or makes the omission but innocently under the agency of another person.
In this case, the law has taken an activist and logical view that the one who acted in all innocence is criminally free even though he is the actual ‘committer’ of the crime.
This is because the law looks into intent before a crime can be purported to have been committed. An ad nauseam hypothetical example is an infant child who has been trained to take good off a market stall and bring it for the family’s usage. In this instance, the child when trapped in this jaw of crime is a mere actor and not only acted in all innocence and does not have the capacity to commit a crime.
The principal offender, in this case, becomes the parents because from a prudent vintage point, the parents are the ones indeed who have the mens rea of stealing criminalized under section 383(6) of the Criminal Code Act by training and propelling a child to be their agent and executor of their wicked intention.
See also R v Idiong and Umo in which a native doctor, Umo was induced by Idiong to administer a drug which the former never thought to be terminal only for the drug to cause the death of a patient who consumed it for abortion purpose.
The Court held that Umo was not criminally liable giving the view that Idiong was solely liable because it is the same as if the act has been done by Idiong himself.
Further, section 7(b) of the Act criminalizes and makes a principal offender any person doing an act or making an omission for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence.
A good instance is digging a hole to serve as a hiding spot for one who is out to steal or lending a matchet to an intending criminal And neglecting to employ one’s influence or authority in diverting a crime as was emphasized in Enweonye v. R(1955) 15 W.A.C.A. 1 at 3.
Again, section 7(d) makes it explicit that a person is a principal offender if he counsels or procures another person to commit an offence.
See Ajao v Alkali Amodu & PC Aruna in which an Alkali, the first defendant instructed a policeman, the second defendant to slap a the claimant for the later’s unceremonious or rude departure from the Court room when proceeding was going on.
Even though the second defendant was the one who actually gave the slap, the first defendant was found guilty of actually commiting assault as was thus the principal offender as the one who counseled.
Finally, section 515 criminalizes as a principal offence the neglecting of the prevention of felony from being committed. In Obumselu v C.O.P, a student who was persuaded by his girlfriend to lend his room for abortion and who later obliged was convicted for the actual crime for neglecting to prevent it.
In conclusion, it is no gainsaying that it is of great vitality as the law punishes as principal offenders those who are not within the category of actual offenders. The society would have been a cesspool of criminality if literally one could instigate or facilitate a crime and still go away with the sheer ‘actual-operator’ defense.
Reference:
1.Criminal Code Act.
2.Criminal Law in Nigeria by Okonkwo and Naish.
3.Wikipedia.
