Peter Johnny Loke v. The State [1985]

CASE TITLE AND CITATION

Peter Johnny Loke v. The State [1985]

1 NWLR (Pt. 1) 1

COURT NAME AND BENCH

Bendel State High Court – Trial Court

• Kwale Division

Court of Appeal,

• Benin Division
• President of the Court of Appeal, Nasir, P. – Lead Justice or President

The Supreme Court of Nigeria,

Judges;

• Justice Andrews Otutu Obaseki,
• Justice Augustine Nnamani Aniagolu
• Justice Saidu Kawu
• Justice Muhammadu Lawal Uwais Coker
• Justice Chkwunweike Idigbe Oputa

DATE OF JUDGEMENTS

• Trial court- date not specified in the case report but likely 1970 or 1980.
• Court of Appeal- date not specified in the case report but likely late 1983 or early 1984.
• Supreme Court- January 4, 1985.

PARTIES INVOLVED

Peter Johnny Loke (Appellant/Accused)

Peter Johnny Loke was an apprentice tailor and messenger from Umukwala, in the Kwale Division of Bendel State (now Delta State, Nigeria).

The State (Respondent/ Prosecution)

The State, represented by the prosecution in Bendel State, charged Loke with murder under section 316 of the Criminal Code.[1]

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case of Peter Johnny Loke v. The State (also cited as Loke v. The State) is a Nigerian criminal appeal decided by the Supreme Court (Suit No. SC 85/1984).

Peter Johnny Loke, the appellant (and accused at trial), was an apprentice tailor working as a messenger in Lagos. In August 1977, he fell ill, described by his family members as madness and was brought back to his hometown of Umukwala by a relation named Uzor, with whom he had lived and worked in Lagos. His symptoms included shouting incoherently, removing his clothes, and wandering aimlessly in his underwear, leading his family to chain him temporarily for safety. His mother (P.W.4) and uncle arranged treatment from a native doctor, but by early 1978, Loke had only partially recovered and was still exhibiting signs of mental instability, such as unbalanced behavior. He had no prior criminal history or known violent tendencies.

On May 3, 1978, at Anigbe Farm in the Kwale Division of Bendel State (now part of Delta State), Loke was working on the family farm alongside his brother (P.W.6) and others. After some time, Loke abruptly left the group, mounted his bicycle, and rode away while muttering “nei nei” (meaning “look, look” in the local Ukwani language). He encountered Kaine Dike (the deceased), a man with whom Loke had no prior acquaintance, grudge, or interaction. Without provocation or motive, Loke attacked Dike with a matchet, decapitating him in a single stroke. Loke then returned briefly to the farm area, where his brother later discovered Dike’s headless body slumped over a bicycle. That evening, Loke visited his aunt’s house, where his behavior was again noted as abnormal, he appeared disoriented and drove people away, prompting his aunt to remark that he was “going to start it all over again.’’

Loke later confessed to the killing both in a police statement (Exhibit “A”) and during his trial testimony, providing a straightforward account of the act but interspersing it with delusional or imaginary elements (e.g., references to unseen forces). He expressed no remorse or rational explanation for the attack.

ISSUES RAISED

At the trial court;

• Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Loke intentionally caused the death of Kaine Dike by decapitation with a matchet on May 3, 1978.
• Whether Loke, bearing the burden of proof under section 27 (presumption of sanity), could establish on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from an “abnormality of mind” (due to disease, inherent causes, or arrested development) that substantially impaired his mental responsibility for the act.
• Whether the testimony (from Loke’s mother, brother, and relatives) about his prior mental breakdown in 1977, erratic behavior, and post-incident conduct, without medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the insanity defense under section 140(1) of the Evidence Law.[2]

Court Of Appeal;

• Whether the trial judge properly evaluated the totality of evidence in determining whether Loke suffered from an abnormality of mind under section 28.[3]
• Whether the trial judge correctly applied the burden on Loke to prove insanity on a balance of probabilities, per section 27 and section 140 of the Evidence Act, and whether the prosecution had any duty to disprove insanity.[4]
• Whether the trial judge erred by dismissing lay testimony about Loke’s mental state as insufficient without medical evidence, and whether this constituted a miscarriage of justice.

 Supreme Court;

• Whether the trial judge and Court of Appeal failed to consider the cumulative impact of evidence in determining whether Loke suffered from an abnormality of mind that substantially impaired his mental responsibility.[5]
• Whether lay evidence from family members, combined with Loke’s unprovoked act and delusional confession, met the threshold for insanity under section 28, even without medical testimony, and whether the lower courts’ narrow focus on the moment of the act was a misdirection.[6]
• Whether the trial judge and court of Appeal erred by requiring proof of total insanity rather than partial impairment, and whether they neglected recent judicial authorities on delusions and the broader context of mental abnormality.
• Whether, under section 33 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the evidence warranted quashing the murder conviction and substituting a verdict of detention at the Governor’s pleasure due to insanity.[7]

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

At the trial court-

Appellants (Loke’s) Arguments:

• Insanity Defense: Loke relied on section 28 of the Criminal Code[8], arguing that he suffered from an abnormality of mind due to a 1977 mental breakdown, which substantially impaired his mental responsibility for the unprovoked killing of Kaine Dike on May 3, 1978.
• Lay Evidence: cited family testimony (mother, brother, relatives) about his prior madness, chaining for safety and ongoing erratic behavior as proof of insanity, despite no medical evidence.
• Lack of Motive: emphasized the absence of any grudge or acquaintance with the deceased, suggesting the act’s randomness supported mental instability.

Respondent’s (The State’s) Arguments:

• Proof of Murder: The prosecution established Loke’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt via his voluntary confession (Exhibit A), eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence of decapitation by matchet.
• Burden on Accused: Argued that Loke failed to prove insanity on a balance of probabilities, as required by section 27 (presumption of sanity) and section 140(1) of the Evidence Law, Cap. 57, Laws of Bendel State 1976.
• Insufficient Evidence of Insanity: Contended that prior mental illness (1977) and lay testimony were irrelevant without proof of insanity at the exact time of the offense; Loke’s actions (riding a bicycle, returning to the farm) showed mental capacity.

Court of Appeal-

Appellant’s (Loke’s) arguments:

• Misdirection by trial judge: Argued the judge erred by ignoring the totality of evidence in rejecting the insanity defense.
• Sufficiency of Lay Evidence: Asserted that unchallenged family testimony about his mental state was sufficient to establish insanity under section 28, without requiring medical evidence.
• Miscarriage of justice: claimed the judge’s narrow focus on the moment of the act and dismissal of contextual evidence warranted overturning the conviction.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• No duty to disprove sanity: cited section 140 of the evidence act to argue the prosecution had no obligation to negate sanity; the burden remained on Loke.[9]
• Inadequate evidence: maintained that evidence of prior mental illness was outdated and insufficient to prove insanity on May 3, 1978; Loke’s deliberate actions negated the defense.
• Upholding Conviction: argued the trial judge correctly applied the law, and no foundation existed for an insanity defense based on the record.

Supreme Court –

Appellant’s (Loke’s) Arguments:

• Lower Courts’ error: contended that both lower courts misdirected themselves by not considering the cumulative evidence as indicative of an abnormality of mind under section 28.
• Broader interpretation of insanity: argued that partial impairment, not total insanity, was sufficient, and lay evidence met the balance of probabilities standard.
• Special verdict: sought a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity under section 33 of the Criminal Procedure Act, citing recent authorities on delusions and mental abnormality.

Respondent’s (The State’s) Arguments:

• Burden Not Met: Reiterated that Loke failed to prove insanity on a balance of probabilities, as required by section 27, and that lay testimony lacked specificity to the offense’s timing.
• prosecution’s case strength: emphasized the voluntary confession and brutal nature of the act as evidence of criminal responsibility, with no compelling proof of impaired mental capacity.
• Lower courts’ correctness: defended the trial and appellate courts’ rulings, arguing that they properly evaluated the evidence and applied the legal test for insanity.

JUDGMENT OF EACH COURT-

Trial court: Loke was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by hanging.

The Court of Appeal: it dismissed Loke’s appeal, upholding the trial court’s conviction and sentence.

Supreme Court: it quashed the murder conviction and set aside the death sentence. A special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity was entered and Loke was ordered to be detained at the Governor’s pleasure.[10]

LEGAL REASONING

Trial court’s ratio decidendi:

• The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Loke committed murder under section 316 of the criminal code, Cap. 48, Laws of Bendel State 1976, based on his voluntary confession (Exhibit A), eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence confirming decapitation of Kaine Dike on May 3, 1978.
• Loke failed to meet the burden of proving insanity on a balance of probabilities, as required by section 27 and section 140(1) of the evidence law. The court held that evidence of Loke’s 1977 mental breakdown and lay testimony was insufficient to establish an abnormality of mind at the time of the offense, as his actions afterwards the incident suggested mental capacity.
• The absence of medical evidence and specific proof of insanity at the exact moment of the killing negated the defense, leading to a conviction for murder.

Court of Appeal’s ratio decidendi:

• The trial judge correctly applied the law by convicting Loke of murder, as the prosecution’s evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Loke failed to discharge the burden of proving insanity as the lay evidence of prior mental illness and post incident behavior did not sufficiently demonstrate an abnormality of mind as at the time of the offense. The court emphasized that the prosecution had no duty to disprove insanity.[11]
• There was no misdirection by the trial judge, as the evidence did not provide a foundation for the insanity defense, particularly without medical testimony linking loke’s mental state to the act.

Significant precedent cited: E. Udofia v. The State (1981) JELR 46376 (SC)

Supreme Court’s ratio decidendi:

• The trial court and court of appeal erred by failing to consider the totality of evidence, which clearly supported a finding of insanity under section 28 of the Criminal Code. The evidence included:
• Unchallenged lay testimony about Loke’s 1977 mental breakdown, chaining, and ongoing erratic behavior.
• The absence of motive or prior relationship with the deceased, indicating an unprovoked act of consistent with mental abnormality.
• Delusional elements in Loke’s confession and trial testimony, suggesting impaired mental responsibility.
• Section 28 requires only partial impairment of mental responsibility due to an abnormality of mind, not total insanity. Lay evidence was sufficient to meet the balance of probabilities standard, and the lower courts’ insistence on medical or precise timing was a misdirection.
• The cumulative circumstances warranted a special verdict of not guilty reason of insanity under section 33 of the Criminal Procedure Act, protecting vulnerable defendants from rigid evidentiary standards.

Significant Precedents Cited:

• v. Sullivan (1984) AC 156 (House of Lords)
• v. Omoni (1949) 12 WACA 511
• Udofia v. The State (1981) JELR 46376 (SC)
• M’Naghten’s Case (1843) UKHL J16

CONCLUSION

This case has clearly expounded on Nigeria’s distinct approach to cases where defense of insanity is invoked. It is pertinent to note how the case grew from the trial court to the appeal court and finally the apex court. It has also shaped plethora of cases and influenced the court’s decision in similar situations.

My reflection is, at the end of this, Dike is dead. Absolving the appellant of the murder charge, does it imply miscarriage of justice to the deceased’s family?

Reference(S):

[1] Criminal Code, Cap. 48, Laws of Bendel State 1978, s 316

[2] Evidence Law, Cap. 57, Laws of Bendel State 1976, s 27

[3] Ibid, s 28

[4] Ibid, s 27, 140

[5] Peter Johnny Loke v The State [1985] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1) 1, 5.

[6] Ibid p. 3

[7] Ibid, p. 3

[8] Ibid, p. 4

[9] Ibid, p.3, 4

[10] Peter Loke v The State [1985] 1 NWLR (Pt.1)1, 12

[11] Evidence Law, Cap. 57, Laws of Bendel State 1976, s 140