The Plea Of Intoxication By Chidinma Ojukwu And The Possible Legal Effect On Her Murder Charges

The Plea Of Intoxication By Chidinma Ojukwu And The Possible Legal Effect On Her Murder Charges

                                    By LORD O.O. Ogunmodede

The defense of intoxication is one of the defences available to defendants in criminal law cases. A defendant who raises this defense claims that he should not be held liable for a crime because his compromised mental state prevented him from forming the necessary mens rea. On June 15,the whole country woke up to the news of the murder of Super TV's CEO Michael Ataga in a short-let apartment in Lekki phase 1,Lagos where he was spending time with his undergraduate lover Chidinma Ojukwu. Chidinma who was arrested on June 23 initially confessed to have killed him in self-defence. In subsequent interviews, she claimed that they were under the influence of alcohol and drugs when she stabbed Ataga to death.

Generally speaking, intoxication is not a defence to a crime as such, but where a person is intoxicated having consumed drinks or drugs and commits a crime, the level of intoxication may be such as to prevent the defendant from forming the necessary mens rea of the crime. The 21st Century Chambers Dictionary defines intoxication as 'a condition in which certain centers of the brain are affected by alcohol or other drugs,gases,heavy metals or other toxic substances. Section 29(1) of the Criminal Code states that intoxication shall not constitute a defence to any criminal charge except as provided in the section. This means that intoxication is not per se excusable under the law except where some conditions exist that may afford a culprit the opportunity to rely on it as a defence. Section 29 (2) of the Criminal Code provides that intoxication shall be a defence to any criminal charge if by reason thereof, the person charged at the time of the act or omission complained of did not know what he was doing and-

(a) the state of intoxication was caused without his consent by the malicious or negligent act of another person; or

(b) the person charged was by reason of intoxication insane, temporarily or otherwise, at the time of such act or omission.

The above section of the Criminal Code establishes that intoxication can be voluntary or involuntary. Where intoxication is voluntary,the person could be excused if as at the time of committing the alleged offence,he did not form the requisite mens rea. In the case of DPP v BEARD, the court held that evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into consideration along with the other facts proved in order to determine whether or not he had this specific intent. Criminal Code provides that if a defendant establishes that intoxication was involuntary in line with the clear letters of Section 29(2)(a) and upon proof beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the court,he shall be discharged. A defendant may also lean on Section 29 (2)(b)(I), if by reason thereof, the defendant, at the time of the act, did not know that what he has done is wrong,or that he did not know what he was doing at the time of his doing the act or wrong complained of.

THE POSSIBLE LEGAL EFFECT

Like all defences,the burden of proving the defence of intoxication rests solely on the defendant. In this case, if Chidinma can successfully prove,on the balance of probabilities, that at the time of the act,she did not know what she was doing and the state of intoxication was involuntary as a result of the malicious or negligent act of another person she may be discharged and relieved from criminal responsibility as envisaged in Section 29(3) of the Criminal Code. 

Section 29 (4) of the Criminal Code states that intoxication shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the person charged had formed any intention,specific or otherwise, in the absence of which he would not be guilty of the offence. This means that for the court to take the defense of intoxication into consideration,it will be for the purpose of determining whether the defendant had the necessary mens rea for the offence at the time of commission. If Chidinma can successfully prove to the satisfaction of the court that though intoxication was voluntary on her part, at the time of the murder she lacked the specific intent to commit the murder, she may not be held guilty of the offence.

Proving the lack of mens rea for the defence of intoxication to avail Chidinma may be very difficult in this case as her actions after the offence had been committed and the weapon used in committing this offence are tilting towards the negative for her. Nevertheless we await the decision of the court as to whether or not this defence will avail her.