The Movie “Dark October” And The Concept Of Jungle Justice Under Nigerian Law

By Oliver Azi

The idea of justice in every society is precinct. Its importance cannot be underestimated becauae its rubrics affect every body (both natural and juristic) in a society. In buttressing this fact, the learned Oputa, JSC, in the notorious case of Josiah v The State (1985) 1 NWLR reiterated in his dictum where he said:

“And justice is not a one-way traffic… It is really a three-way traffic: justice for the appellant/accused of a heinous crime of murder; justice for the victim, the murdered man, the deceased – whose blood is crying to heaven for vengeance; and, finally justice for the society at large – the society whose social norms and values had been desecrated and broken by the criminal act complained of . . .”

Jungle justice as the name connote is a justice predominantly used by “animals in a jungle”. Sadly, it has being domesticated in our society. Jungle justice or mob justice is a form of public extrajudicial killings (which can be found in Nigeria and Cameroon), where an alleged criminal is publicly humiliated, beaten and summarily executed by vigilantes or an angry mob. This was what the movie “Dark October” produced by popular Nigerian blogger—Linda Ikeji—tried to depict.

DARK OCTOBER

Released to Netflix on 3^rd February, 2023, this movie chronicles the sad story of the “Aluu Four lynching” where four young students—Chiadika Biringa, Lloyd Toku Mike, Tekena Elkanah and Ugonna Obuzor—at the University of Port Harcourt were lynched by mob action—jungle justice. These four went to a particular area in search of a debtor who owed one of them, unfortunately, the debtor raised a false alarm and alleged that the boys came to rob him of his valuables, mobs then paraded the boys as thieves and lynched them, this mob attack sparked a nationwide crisis and debate as to jungle justice in Nigeria.

THE EYES OF THE LAW

In Nigeria, it is an offence to participate in any mob action by setting a person ablaze or inflicting physical injury on them, hence, causing their death. The magnus opus of our laws—the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)—provides in Section 33(1) that:

“Every person has a right to life and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria”

Similarly, the Criminal Code which governs, primarily, criminal liability in the Southern part of Nigeria provides in Section 315 that:

“Any person who unlawfully kills another is guilty of an offence called murder or manslaughter, according to the circumstances of the case.”

In the Northern part of Nigeria, Section 220 of the Penal Code, the (primary) law, defining criminal liability in Nigeria also provides for that:

“Whoever causes death:-

(a) by doing an act with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death…commits the offence of culpable homicide.

The spirit of these laws is seen hovering around Section 8(1) of Administration of Criminal and Justice Act, 2015 and Section 2(1) of the Violence Against Persons Act. Hence, the bedrock of Nigerian law of crime is that: Kill and thou shalt be declared, a murderer or manslaughterer.

The Supreme Court in the case of Kalu v. State (1998) LPELR-1655 made a fundamental observation. Anthony Ikechukwu Iguh JSC provides for ways a person accused of a crime can be rightly prosecuted as against jungle justice, he mentioned that:

“…for a valid and proper arraignment of an accused person, the following three conditions must be satisfied namely: –

1. The accused person must be placed before the court unfettered unless the court shall see cause otherwise to order;
2. The charge of information shall be read over and explained to him to the satisfaction of the court by the Registrar or other officer of the court; and

• The accused shall then be called upon to plead instantly thereto (unless, of course, there exists any valid reason to do otherwise such as objection to want of service where the accused is entitled by law to service of a copy of the information and the court is satisfied that he has in fact not been duly served therewith) …”

Jungle justice trial does not meet any of this requirement. Moreover, and for purpose of making an emphasis, the learned Justice firmly added that, the three requirements as to the arraignment of a suspect must co-exist. Sadly, these young men, if given a fair and proper trial with the basic ingredients outlined by the learned justice, would most definitely be free men in our society today.

____________________________________________________________

Oliver Azi is a student of law at the University of Jos with keen interest on law and society. He can be reached on WhatsApp at 07088859703 or oliverazi20@gmail.com