Maryam Sanda v The State: CircumstantialEvidence and the Death Penalty in Nigerian Criminal Jurisprudence

1. Case Title & Citation 

Maryam Sanda v The State (Unreported, High Court of the FCT, 27 January 2020); affirmed (Unreported, Court of Appeal Abuja Division, 4 December 2020); affirmed (Unreported, SC/CR/11/2021, Supreme Court of Nigeria, 23 May 2022). 

2. Court Name & Bench 

– Trial Court: High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja – presided over by Hon.  Justice Yusuf Halilu. 

– Appellate Court: Court of Appeal, Abuja Division. 

– Final Appeal: Supreme Court of Nigeria. 

3. Dates of Judgment 

– High Court: 27 January 2020. 

– Court of Appeal: 4 December 2020. 

– Supreme Court: 23 May 2022. 

4. Parties Involved 

– Appellant/Defendant: Maryam Sanda. 

– Respondent: The State (Federal Republic of Nigeria). 

– Deceased: Bilyaminu Muhammed Bello (husband of the appellant). 

5. Facts of the Case 

On 18 November 2017, Maryam Sanda allegedly stabbed her husband, Bilyaminu Bello,  during a domestic quarrel after discovering nude photographs of another woman on his  mobile phone, escalated and led to his death.  

The prosecution alleged that Sanda fatally stabbed her husband during the quarrel. 

As there were no direct eyewitnesses, the prosecution’s case rested entirely on  circumstantial evidence, including: 

– Testimony from witnesses who overheard the couple’s dispute; 

– The nature and severity of the wounds sustained by the deceased;

– Forensic details indicating use of a sharp object such as a knife. 

The defense countered that the incident was an accident, alleging the deceased fell on a  broken shisha bottle, and argued the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove  guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

6. Issues for Determination 

The following legal questions arose: 

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution was sufficient to  prove the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt. 
2. Whether the prosecution discharged the burden of proof required to establish actus reus  and mens rea under Nigerian law. 
3. Whether the death sentence violated the appellant’s constitutional rights under section  33 of the 1999 Constitution. 

       7.Arguments of the Parties 

Respondent (The State): 

– Asserted that circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain leading to one  irresistible conclusion: that the appellant intentionally stabbed the deceased. – Maintained that both actus reus (unlawful act) and mens rea (intention to kill or cause  grievous bodily harm) had been established. 

Appellant (Maryam Sanda): 

– Contended that circumstantial evidence, in the absence of direct eyewitnesses, was  insufficient to sustain a conviction for a capital offence. 

– Highlighted inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution’s case, arguing that a  reasonable doubt existed as to the appellant’s guilt. 

8. Judgment / Final Decision 

– High Court (27 January 2020): Convicted Maryam Sanda of murder under section 221  of the Penal Code and sentenced her to death by hanging.

– Court of Appeal (4 December 2020): Dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction  and sentence. 

– Supreme Court (23 May 2022): Dismissed the final appeal, affirming the concurrent  findings of the lower courts and upholding the death sentence. 

9. Legal Reasoning (Ratio Decidendi) 

The courts anchored their reasoning on the following principles: 

1. Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Circumstantial evidence can ground a  conviction, even for capital offences, provided it is cogent and complete. 
2. Proof of Actus Reus and Mens Rea: The stabbing constituted actus reus, while the  mens rea was inferred from the severity of the wounds and use of a lethal weapon.
3. Constitutionality of the Death Penalty: Death penalty under section 221 of the Penal  Code does not violate section 33 of the 1999 Constitution, as upheld in Kalu v State. 
4. Domestic quarrel context: Emotional circumstances of the quarrel did not absolve  liability for murder. 

       10.Obiter Dicta 

– Justice Halilu lamented the prevalence of domestic violence and urged couples to seek  peaceful conflict resolution. 

– The appellate courts emphasized that abolition of the death penalty is a legislative  matter, not a judicial one. 

11. Conclusion / Observations 

Legal Significance: 

This case is a landmark in Nigerian criminal law for reinforcing that strong circumstantial  evidence can sustain a murder conviction. It also reaffirmed the constitutionality of the  death penalty. 

Critical Commentary: 

The case underscores the judiciary’s strict stance against domestic violence but reignited 

debates on proportionality of the death penalty, especially in the context of Nigeria’s  international human rights obligations. 

12. Reference(S): (OSCOLA) 

Table of Cases: 

– Kalu v State (1998) 13 NWLR (Pt 583) 531 (SC). 

– Maryam Sanda v The State (Unreported, SC/CR/11/2021, Supreme Court of Nigeria, 23  May 2022). 

– Ogugu v State (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt 366) 1 (SC). 

Table of Legislation: 

– Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). – Penal Code Act, Cap 532, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (Abuja). 

Bibliography: 

– Baderin MA, International Human Rights and Islamic Law (OUP 2003). – Bassi M, ‘Circumstantial Evidence in Nigerian Criminal Jurisprudence’ (2021) Nigerian  Law Journal 45. 

– Media reports: Vanguard, Premium Times, and The Guardian newspapers.