Topic 3 - Offences Against The State

Question 1

R V Casement

Answer 1

Treason is an offence which compels allegiance by both natural and local subjects.

Question 2

Joyce v DPP

Answer 2

The scope of persons whose allegiance is compelled, extends to those outside the realm but who still enjoys the protection and privileges of the crown, such as the holding of passport of the realm(UK).

Question 3

R v Vaughan

Answer 3

Mere enlisting and marching is sufficient to establish levying of war provided it is accompanied by force and it is of a public or general objective.

Question 4

R V Hardie (1821)

Answer 4

The marching must be for public objectives. It is merely a riot where it’s for private objectives.

Question 5

R V Hardy (1794)

Answer 5

Getting harmed to despise the Queen or usurp the power of the constitutional government is treason.

Question 6

Boro & Ors v The Republic

Answer 6

The accused part recruited persons into the Nigerian Delta Volunteer Force and declared the independence of the Nigerian Delta Republic within Nigeria. They were convicted of treason.

On appeal, the conviction was upheld and the argument that whether or not the president was intimidated was dismissed as immaterial.

Question 7

Hasan Khan v The State

Answer 7

Shearer J defined the term “overawe” to connote not just fear or the apprehension of threat but “a situation in which the members of the central government feel compelled to choose between yielding to force or exposing themselves or the members of the public to a very serious danger.”

Question 8

Omisade v R

Answer 8

The provision of section 201(1) of the evidence act regarding the three types of evidence upon which conviction in treason can be found was upheld.

Question 9

Sedition
Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP v Chike Obi

Answer 9

Principle
There is a need to strike a balance between freedom of expression and security of the state

Facts
The accused published an article with the words “down with the enemies of the people…”
The appellant asked the Supreme Court whether or not the law of sedition contravened his constitutional right to freedom of expression.

Held
The words were held to be seditious
The law was reasonably justifiable in a democratic society & therefore constitutional.

Question 10

R v Alfred

Answer 10

It should be considered Whether the words used were meant to incite

Question 11

Nwobiala v The Police

Answer 11

Principle

It is not sedition to point out errors or defects in the Government of Nigeria with a view to remedying such errors or defects.

Facts
A telegram was sent to a regional premier who then published it.

Held.
Not to be seditious.

OR

Facts

A telegram sent to a regional premier accusing leaders of his party of acts which brought discredit on the government and calling on him to restrain them was HELD not to be seditious.

Question 12

DPP v Obi

Answer 12

The accused published a material calling the government of Nigeria “the enemy of the people, exploiters of the weak and oppressors of the poor”

He was convicted of sedition.

Question 13

Ogbuagu v Police

Answer 13

The employer of the accused published a seditious article contrary to his express prohibition. It was held that the mens rea of seditious intent is not proved and thus, he was discharged.

Question 14

IGP v Anagbogu

Answer 14

It was held that where seditious intent is proved, it is immaterial that the publication itself suggests pointing out error for the purpose of effecting a change which ordinarily does not constitute a seditious intent as provided in the second part of Sec 50(2)

He remains liable.

Question 15

R v Wallace Johnson

Answer 15

The intent to invite violence is immaterial… So long as there is a seditious intent.

Subjected to criticism by DC Holland in his article, “Equity before the law.”

Question 16

African Press v R

Answer 16

The accused published an headline asking the public to beware of administrative officers as they were disguised enemies of the struggle for freedom and incompetent dictators working against nationalist.

Question 17

African Press v AG

Answer 17

The accused published an article accusing the regional government of diversion of public funds and inciting one ethnic group against another.

It was held that though a truthful statement could serve as evidence of contrary intent in certain circumstances, it is not a defence.

Question 18

R v Alfred

Answer 18

The accused approved of political assassination in a manger that implied that others should adopt such means, he was convicted of sedition.

Question 19

Nwobiala v Police

Answer 19

It was held that a telegram sent to a Regional Premier accusing leaders of his political parties of acts which brought discredit on the government and calling him to restrain the accused was held not to be seditious.

This was probably due to;

1. The nature of the publication.
2. It sought for a redress and correction of defects.

Question 20

R v Agwuna

Answer 20

The nature of the audience a statement was made is material to establish seditious intent and consideration should be given to the language, whether it’s capable of affecting “the minds of the ordinary people of the country.”

See also, Lim Chin Ail v R

Question 21

IGP v Anozie

Answer 21

The burden of proving a contrary intent (seditious intent) rests on the accused.