Okoro Mariagbe v The State (SC.481/75) [1977] NGSC 8;(1977) All NLR 31.

Facts

At around six o’clock in the evening, Kihodu Ajebor, who had not returned from his farm in Owa-Oyibu village, Delta state was discovered dead, bleeding from a dagger wounds to his hands amd almost severed from his neck. His wife and his step brother searched the land with a touch light until he was found, but not just alive, he was dead. The body was left there until the Police arrived by morning and found a knife near the scene that was after a thorough investigation, it belonged to the appellant¹. There was no eye-witness who saw the killing, although, still the same day, a taxi driver apprehended the appellant, who had blood-stained matchet snd trousers, with Awolowo weeds tangled in his hair and made incriminating statements. Later own, he claimed he had an alibi and confessed that the dagger belonged to him but he left it with a native doctor while fleeing a belly ache treatment².

Issues

• If circumstantial evidence that was not “cogent, complete and unequivocal” could support a murder conviction.
• Whether the inference of the appellant’s culpability was undercut by coexisting circumstances, such as the possibility to plant the dagger and thee absence of fingerprint or blood-group specificity.

Rule

• Substantive offence: in section 319(1) of the Criminal Code, “any person who commits the offence of murder shall be sentenced ro death.³”
• Circumstantial Evidence: as seen in the case of Lejzor Teper v The Queen (1952) AC
• The circumstantial evidence must “be always narrowly examined… and be free of other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference” of guilt.⁴
• Judicial caution: it is required by courts that circumstantial evidence must be “cogent, complete, and unequivocal” before sustaining a conviction.

Court Analysis

The supreme court ruled that the case of the prosecution “fell far short of the degree of conclusiveness” necessary to support a murder conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. More so, that circumstantial evidence must be “cogent, complete and unequivocal” and is subject to rigorous scrutiny to avoid wrongful inferences in murder prosecution.

Using the narrow existing principle in the case of Teper v The Queen⁵ the court emphasized that any co-existing facts, such as the likelihood that the appellant’s knife was placed by the native doctor, undermine the prosecution’s chain of proof. It pointed out that a chance for fabrication weakened the inference of guilt due to the reason that neither PW1 (the wife) nor PW2 (the step brother) noticed any weapons at the site where they initially found the dead body. That, forensic and botanical evidence, including the existence of blood group “A” stain and Awolowo weeds tangled in the appellant’s hair, were neutral, inconclusive, and unable to link him to the murder.

The tribunal noted that fingerprint analysis would have probably reduced the number of suspects and ought to have been carried out, emphasizing the preference for direct forensic methods. The requirement that circumstantial chains leave no room for reasonable doubt was reaffirmed by later jurisprudence, such as Michael Peter v. The State [1997]1 and R v. Ororasokede (1960)⁶.

This means that each link in the evidential chain must be so strong that it irresistibly points to the appellant’s guilt.

Conclusion

As a result, Okoro Mariagbe became the foremost expert on the boundaries of circumstantial evidence in Nigerian homicide prosecutions when the Supreme Court overturned the murder conviction, revoked the mandatory death sentence, and rendered an acquittal ruling. Any individual in detention was to be released immediately once the appeal was granted

Significance

Regarding the limitations of circumstantial evidence in murder trials, Okoro Mariagbe v. The State continues to be the most important Nigerian case. The ruling enforces strict scrutiny of circumstantial evidence, upholding the constitutional presumption of innocence and preventing miscarriages of justice in homicide cases, where Section 319 mandates the ultimate penalty. It codified that such evidence must be “cogent, complete, and unequivocal,” free from any coexisting circumstances that may cast reasonable doubt.

Bibliography

Criminal Code Act, Cap C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990. Lejzor Teper v The Queen [1952] AC 480 (HL).

Okoro Mariagbe v The State (SC.481/75) [1977] NGSC 8; (1977) All NLR 31.

R v Ororasokede (1960) 5 F.S.C. 208.

Legislation & Materials

Chapter 27 of the Criminal Code Act in Nigeria (Jurist) https://jurist.ng/criminal_code_act/part- 5/chapter-27 accessed 24 April 2025.

Criminal Code Act (Unodc consolidation) https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/uploads/res/document/nga/1916/criminal_code_act_html/Nigeria_C riminal_Code_Act_1916.pdf accessed 24 April 2025.

Nigeria: Criminal Code Act | Refworld https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/1916/en/65684 accessed 24 April 2025.

Secondary Sources

“The Offences of Murder, Culpable Homicide and Attempt-To-Murder in Nigeria” (OAL Law) https://oal.law/the-offences-of-murder-culpable-homicide-and-attempt-to-murder-in-nigeria/ accessed 24 April 2025.

“OKORO MARIAGBE v THE STATE” (Wikidata) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q125537303 accessed 24 April 2025.

Okoro Mariagbe v The State (1977) JELR 34021 (SC).

Supreme Court of Nigeria – March 1977 judgments, NigeriaLII https://nigerialii.org/judgments/NGSC/1977/3/ accessed 24 April 2025.

Reference(S):

¹ Okoro Mariagbe v The State (SC.481/75) [1977] NGSC 8;(1977)

² ibid

³ Criminal Code Act, cap C38, Laws of The Federation of Nigeria 1990, s 319(1)

⁴ Lejzor Teper v The Queen (1952) AC 480 at 489

⁵ ibid

⁶ Michael Peter v. The State [1997] 12 NWLR (Pt 531) 1 and R v. Ororasokede (1960) 5 FSC 208