(a) Person who actually does the act or makes the omission.
(b) He is the person to whom, mens rea is attributed.
© Fires a gun or administers poison, which courses with death, (d) Appropriates the goods stolen ,
(e) Goes through a second ceremony of marriage .
If an offence is committed by a group of people, say 20 persons, and the police have solved the case by arresting 9, 10, 11,or 12 of them. No law binds the police to charge all of them. They may, in exercise of their discretion charge 3, 4, 5 or none of them. They may deliberately (and legitimately too) omit to charge the person who actually did the act or made the omission which constitutes the offence. However, although they have the power, they may not necessarily and are not likely to exercise it that way. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the vagaries of police policy
For example suppose among the 20 people that committed the offence, the person who actually did the act or made the omission which constitutes the offence is an infant. It would be illegitimate to charge but quitted legitimate to charge the adults falling under sub-section (b) (c) (d) of Section 7 to the exclusion of the infant under 7(a).
Where it is proved that two or more persons have acted in concert when the act or omission which constituted the offence was actually done or made, it is not necessary to prove which of them did the act or omission, as long as it is proved that one
Of them, must have done so: Alagba (1950) 19 NLR 128 (PC).
3.3 “Aiders and Abettors’ and “Aid and Abet”
Aiding or enabling another is to aid and abet, to assist or facilitate the commission of a crime or to promote its accomplishment.
Aid:
To aid is to “give help, support or assistance to” before or at the time of offence. Aid denotes the actus reus. Example: supplying a weapon of offence. Transporting the offender to the scene
Aiding or enabling. To abet, excite, encourage, advise, or instigate the commission of a crime.
The person who does or omits to do an act for the purpose of aiding or enabling another(section 7, sub-section (b) or who aids another (section 7,sub-section(c) ) to commit an offence is a party to the offence committed.
R v Bryce (2004), (1) transported P (the killer) who was acting on the orders of if B.(a drug baron) to the scene; but killing did not occur until 13 hours later. Held there was no overwhelming supervening event
“sufficient to break the chain of causation.
Akran v IGP (1960)
A police officer, who merely aided two men to procure for themselves, a driver’s licence by false pretence, was charged with actually obtaining the licence. The court held that the prosecution was entitled to do so.
What each of the parties did in facilitating the commission of the crime must be clear. Mere presence, at the scene of crime, without more, would not suffice except if by nature of his status (position of rank or influence) his presence could be taken to tantamount to a direct encouragement.
R V Akpunonu (1942)
A father buried alive a newly born twin in the presence of their mother.
Held there was no evidence that the mother took part, aided, enabled, counseled or procured or did anything to enable or aid. The court considers the definition of each principal offender in relation with the facts of each particular case and labels them accordingly.
Self Assessment Exercise
Examine the situation below and answer the questions which follows:
Yakub is accused of stealing a goat. It was alleged that Bassey lent him a rope which enabled him to overcome and carry away the goat. Salami stood a few yards away to watch if anyone was coming their direction in order to ward off their capture. Nwonu was present. watching the scenario. Yakub, Bassey. Salami and Nwonu are arrested and charge as parties to the offence of theft of a goat. The counsel for Yakubu has made a no case submission and he is discharged on the ground that the
prosecution has failed to establish any prima facie case against him. The prosecution seeks to proceed with the case.
1. What are the chances of Bassey, Salami and Nwonu?
2. Would it make a difference if Bassey, Salami and Nwonu were charged to the exclusion of Yakubu either because he is an innocent agent relieved of criminal responsibility or simply not charged?
Let us consider some differences between section 7 (b) and 7 (c)
Section 7 (b)
Does or omits to do any act fir purpose of enabling or aiding another to commit a crime.
Abets incites, investigates, or encourages.
Does not imply the offence has been committed, the encouragement may have failed. But the offence must have been committed.
Act of aiding or enabling takes place before the Commission of the crime.
At Common Law, a principal in the second degree.
It is not requirement of the criminal law that the act or omission “enabling or aiding” must facilitate the commission of the
Section 7 (c)
Aids another person in committing an offence.
Gives help, support, or assistance.
The assistance as well as the commission of crime are simultaneous.
At Common law, this is accessory
crime charged.
But there must be (i) some connection, at least, an awareness that there is the authority, encouragement or the approval to do the relevant acts (i) meeting of minds between the abettor and the principal (or otherwise the abetting would not be operative.
before the facts.
Assistance falls short of actual commission but there must be clear evidence of the act of assistance something to facilitate the commission of the crime charged.
R Idiong and Umo (1950)
Idiong intending to procure an abortion, induced Umo to administer a drug to the woman and she died as a result.
Held Umo is an innocent agent and Idiong , was solely liable “as if the unlawful act had been done by himself”. If Umo knows of Idiong’s intendment and still acted the way he did, he would probably be a principal offender under (section 7,sub-section(a) while Idiong falls under section 7 sub-section (d)for counseling and procuring .
However, one can only aid and abet a substantive offence which has been committed (State v Nwanoga (1979).
Self Assessment Exercise
Kalu and Uba intend to steal from Yinka. Uba drills a hole through the wall to let Kalu into Yinka’s bed room unknown to B, who eventually entered the room through the chimney, and successfully steals?
It is not enough that the suspect was present and did nothing more to facilitate the commission of the offence charged..
In Akanni VR
The Court held that the members of a crowd who stood by, watching house burning, knowing an old woman to be locked in, behaved disgracefully but that does not bring them within section 7 as to be regarded as participants in murder.
To constitute an offence , one’s presence must purposely facilitate or aid the commission of crime charged. In which case, he/she is an accomplice . His presence and omission to act constitute intentional aid.
Azuma VR (1950).
Enweonye v R
There was a clash between occupants of canoes in a river. The evidence against the appellant was that he was at the bank of the river at the time and a call was made to him to pursue one of the disputants but this call had no effect.
The court confirmed that a man cannot be liable under section 7(c) unless his act or omission is of actual assistance, although he can under 7(b).