insanity & insane delusion

By the provisions of Section 28 of the Criminal Code, the raising of the defence of insanity means, on the face of it, that the person committed the act complained of but without his mind; the actus reus is admitted but the mens rea is denied. By the provisions of Section 28 of the Criminal Code, the raising of the defence of insanity supposes on the face of it that the person committed the act complained of but without his mind; the actus reus is admitted but the mens rea is denied. ADELU V. STATE (2012) ALL FWLR (PT.615) 378 AT P.387, PARAS. D-E; MADJEMU V. STATE (2001) FWLR (PT.52) 2210, (2001) 5 SCNJ 31. ALIYU V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR; OKON V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR

No, to succeed, the person pleading the defense of insane delusion must show that the reaction to the state of things as believed by him must be such that it could be regarded as legitimate and natural reaction to such a state of things. For example, a person cannot in a charge for murder successfully plead insane delusion on the fact that he thought he saw dolls on his bed and used knife to stab the dolls. But if he claims to have been deluded to think them to be some reptiles, he may succeed.

He is held responsible to the extent of what is reasonable for a normal person who sees or perceives the situation as the suspect alleging insane delusion saw or perceived it. SEE ADELU V. STATE (2012) ALL FWLR (PT 615) 378; EJINIMA V. STATE (1991) 6 NWLR (PT.200)627; ARUM V. STATE (1979) 1 SC 91; NKANU V. STATE (1980) 3-4 SC 1; UDOFIA V. STATE (1984) 12 SC 139. ALIYU V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR; OKON V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR.

EDITORIAL: While it is acknowledged that the use of the Reasonable Man standard is necessary to ensure some consistency and similitude of objectivity in the application of the law, it must be said that it appears harsh on the accused. A person under insane delusion is not normal, and may actually not only be seeing things that are not but also hearing voices that might compel him to do what his good senses and judgment is telling him not to do. For example, if the law accepts that one could be under insane delusion and as a result be seeing dolls on his bed, the possibility that those dolls could be menacing and threatening ought to be also accepted. He may actually also be hearing voices threateningly directing him on what to do in the situation. The insane delusion condition may not only take away his will-power, but might take away his reasoning-power. He is not just in his right senses and judging him with the standard of the Reasonable Man of the law could be tantamount to, as we have opined above, being harsh on him. Probing into the person’s past, family history, what other things he did before and after the offensive act, subjecting him to psychiatric test, etc. etc. may offer a better and more effective probative evaluation method than the hypothetic Reasonable Man test offers.

No, the defense of insane delusion is different from that of insanity in the sense that under the plea of insane delusion what is being contemplated is the situation where a normal person behaves abnormally because he is affected by delusion with respect to a specific matter, it can be called temporary madness. SECTION 28 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE; IDEH V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR.