Inducement

Inducement has been defined in Blacks Law Dictionary 8th Edition at page 790, as follows: "The act or process of enticing or persuading another person to take a course of action." See also NGORKA V A.G IMO STATE (2014) LPELR- 22532(CA). For this class of offences, a person accused must have intentionally enticed or persuaded another to take the course of action which he would not have taken but for the process of persuasion by the accused. I will also add that the inducement must be by way of falsehood or deceit. It can be likened to undue influence which the apex Court described it in the case of BUA V DAUDA (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 838) 657 following words:
"Undue influence is no doubt elusive of satisfactory definition but it may be regarded as a state of mind of a person who has been subdued to any improper persuasion or machination in such a way that he is overpowered and consequently induced to do or forbear an act which he would otherwise do or not do of his free will. It is a product of the abuse or misuse of the confidence reposed in someone who is able to put some pressure on or take unfair advantage of another: or who takes an oppressive and unfair advantage of another necessities or distress." Per PATS-ACHOLONU, J.S.C.

In the case of BUA V. DAUDA (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 838) 657 UWAIFO JSC, describes the term undue influence in the following language;
"Undue influence is no doubt elusive of satisfactory definition but it may be regarded as a state of mind of a person who has been subdued to any improper persuasion or machination in such a way that he is overpowered and consequently induced to do or forbear an act which he would otherwise do or not do of his free will. It is a product of the abuse or misuse of the confidence reposed in someone who is able to put some pressure on or take unfair advantage of another: or who takes an oppressive and unfair advantage of another necessities or distress." Per PATS-ACHOLONU, J.S.C.
Being a criminal offence, the criminal intent or false pretense is important and must be supported by evidence. False pretense was described in the case of ABATAN OLUWASHEUN V THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2016) LPELR-40768 thus:
The term false pretences denotes the offence of knowingly obtaining someones property by misrepresenting a fact with the intent to defraud that person. In Blacks Law Dictionary, tenth edition it is also termed; the crime of knowingly obtaining title to another persons property by misrepresenting a fact with the intent to defraud. The offence has also been fittingly defined in Section 20 Advance Fee Fraud and other Related Offences Act, 2006, in this way: 20. In this Act- false pretence means a representation, whether deliberate or reckless, made by word, in writing or conduct, of a matter of fact or law, either past or present which representation is false in fact or law, and which the person, making it knows to be false or does not believe to be true. Per Sankey, J.C.A.
To prove obtaining by false pretense, my learned brother OGAKWU, JCA in the case of REV VICTOR MUKORO V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2015) LPELR-24439 (CA) said:
Now, for the offence of obtaining by false pretences to be committed it must be proved that the accused person had an intention to defraud and that the thing is capable of being stolen. An inducement on the part of the accused person to make his victim part with the thing capable of being stolen or make his victim deliver a thing capable of being stolen will expose the accused person to imprisonment for the offence.
In the same vein, JUSTICE ADEJUMO, JCA in the case of ADOHA UGO-NGADI V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA(2015) LPELR- 24824(CA) on the ingredients said as follows:
In AGUBA V FRN (2014) LPELR-23211, this Court held that the offence of obtaining property by false pretences could be committed in writing or even by mere oral communication of the accused person. See AMADI V FRN(2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 259; ONWUDIWE V FRN (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt.988) 382; OSHIN V IGP (1961) I SCNLR 40 where the Court listed the ingredients of obtaining by false pretence thus: (a) that there was a pretence; (b) that the pretence emanated from the Defendants (c) that it was false; (d) that the Defendants knew of the falsity or did not believe in its truth; (e) that there was an intention to defraud; (f) that the thing is capable of being stolen and (g) that the Defendants induced the owner to transfer the property.