AHURUONYE & ANOR V. IKONNE & ORS (2015) LPELR-25609 (CA)

AHURUONYE & ANOR V. IKONNE & ORS (2015) LPELR-25609(CA)

COURT OF APPEAL, OWERRI DIVISION

CORAM: IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A. (DELIVERING THE LEAD JUDGMENT)

BENCH TYPE: APPELLATE / DIVISION BENCH

SUIT NUMBER: CA/OW/222/2011

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED ON 2015-05-11

PARTIES INVOLVED

APPELLANTS: Chief Nduka Ahuruonye, Chinyere Okonkwo –citizens accused of witchcraft and subjected to traditional punishment.

RESPONDENTS: H.R.H. S.E. Ikonne, Mr Chiekela Nwaka, Mr. Onyebuchi S. Ikonne, Enyioma Dickson- the traditional ruler and community members who banished and subjected the appellants to trial by ordeal

FACTS OF THE CASE 

The appellants were accused of being wizards by members of their Ngwa community in Abia State. Acting on this belief, the 1st -4th respondents, including their traditional leader, organised a trial by ordeal during which the appellants were humiliated, physically assaulted and later banished from the community.

The respondents claimed to act under their community custom and alleged that the police were aware of their actions. The appellants approached the court to challenge these acts, arguing that their fundamental rights to dignity, liberty and freedom of thought, conscience and religion under the 1999 Constitution were grossly violated. The trial court dismissed their claim, but the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the trial by ordeal conducted by the respondents was lawful under Nigerian criminal law.
• Whether the banishment and inhumane treatment of the appellants violated their constitutional rights.
• Whether Section 38(4) of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits secret societies, could justify the respondents’ actions against alleged wizards.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

PETITIONERS/APPELLANT KEY CONTENTIONS

• The ordeal amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Section 34(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution.
• Trial by ordeal is expressly criminalized under Sections 207–211 of the Criminal Code of Eastern Nigeria (Cap. 80, Vol. 3, Laws of Abia State, 2005).
• Section 38(4) does not authorize any form of punishment for alleged witches or wizards.

RESPONDENTS’ KEY CONTENTIONS

• The acts were performed in accordance with Ngwa customary law designed to preserve community peace.
• Claimed that the ordeal was carried out with police consent (a claim later disbelieved by the Court).
• Argued that the appellants’ rights claim was unfounded since the ordeal followed accepted custom.

JUDGEMENT/ FINAL DECISION 

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that:

• The trial by ordeal and banishment of the appellants were unlawful, unconstitutional, and criminal.
• The respondents’ actions violated Sections 34, 35, and 38 of the 1999 Constitution.
• Section 38(4) does not authorize punishment for alleged witches or wizards.
• The respondents should have reported any alleged offence to law enforcement rather than resort to mob justice.

The Court condemned the respondents’ conduct as barbaric and contrary to modern legal standards, stressing that no custom or tradition can override constitutional rights.

RATIO DECIDENDI 

Justice Agube, J.C.A., emphasized that trial by ordeal had long been outlawed under Nigerian criminal law. He cited Sections 207–211 of the Criminal Code, which criminalize witchcraft accusations, trial by ordeal, and the participation of traditional rulers in such practices.

The Court further noted that constitutional guarantees of dignity, liberty, and freedom of thought prevail over customary practices.

The judgment reinforced that any person accused of crime must be handed over to the police and tried in a court of law, not through traditional or communal punishment.

CONCLUSION

This case stands as a bold reaffirmation of the supremacy of constitutional rights over cultural or traditional beliefs. It highlights Nigeria’s commitment to protecting human dignity and eradicating barbaric practices masquerading as custom.

The decision also underscores the judiciary’s role in harmonizing law and culture ensuring that while traditions may endure, they must never violate the rule of law or human rights.

This judgment also reminds us that justice must always defend humanity. The law may honor culture, but it must never excuse cruelty. Through this case, the Nigerian judiciary drew a clear line between cultural identity and constitutional integrity  a vital step toward a humane legal order.