Insanity

The Court of Appeal fell into grave error when it inferred (wrongly) after examining exhibit P8 that the respondent was insane because there was absence of evidence of motive for the Murder. On no account should insanity be inferred on such reasoning. Insanity is established by compelling medical evidence produced by the accused person. It is not the business of the court to go on a voyage looking for motive. This is so because the absence of motive is not enough. The onus is not discharged by the respondent denying his own actions or/and claiming that he did not know what came over him when he killed Memmunatu Rasaq. Rather the onus on the accused respondent is discharged by credible evidence which was never produced in court. The defence of insanity ought to and must be rejected since no evidence of previous abnormality was given.
The finding by the Court of Appeal that the defence of insanity was raised and disclosed on the confessional statement was wrong. The Court of Appeal was wrong to have held that the defence of insanity avails the accused/respondent.

When the defence of insanity or diminished responsibility is raised, the burden on the defendant to establish that defence is not as heavy as that which rests on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. However, the defence shall lead evidence material to the conclusion that, on the balance of probability, he was of unsound mind at all times material to the  commission of the offence charged: R. v. DUNBAR (1958) 1 Q. B. 1. ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.
THE SETTLED LAW ON THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION IN AN APPEAL The law is settled in the appellate Courts that issues for determination in an appeal against the decision of a lower Court must inure, arise from and be distilled from the grounds of the appeal which contain the real complaints against the decision of the lower Court. Where any issue submitted to the appellate Court for determination does not arise from and is not reasonably traceable to any of the valid grounds of the appeal, such issue would be invalid and incompetent for the appellate Court to consider and determine on the merit.
See Nasiru v. State (1999) 2 NWLR (pt. 569) 87, Akpan v. FRN (2012) 1 NWLR (pt. 1281) 403, Amadi v. NNPC (2000) 6 SC (pt. 1) 66, Nwosu v. Imo State Env. Sanitation Agency (1990) 2 NWLR (pt. 135) 688, Shitta-Bey v. A. G., Federation (1989) 10 NWLR (pt. 570) 392, Garba v. State (2000) 4 SCNJ. ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.