BABCOCK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW AND SECURITY STUDIES.

IPERU-REMO, OGUN STATE.

ASSSIGNMENT DONE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE;

COURSE: CRIMINAL LAW I

COURSE CODE: LAWS 301

LECTURER: DR ADEKUNBI F. IMOSEMI

TOPIC: FROM SANITY TO NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY: THE LEGAL

FRAMEWORK

GROUP 23

GROUP MEMBERS

OZIGI PRECIOUS RACHEAL -19/0501

OYEDIPE BANKE VICTORIA-19/1481

SALAKO AYOBAMI ELIZABETH-19/1584

OYELEKE MAYOWA ZAYAAD-19/0629

OYESIJI OPEYEMI MORUFAT-19/0624

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CASES & LEGISLATION

INTRODUCTION 1
WHAT IS MENTAL ILLNESS? 2
INSANITY PLEA IN LIAS WITH THE CONCEPT OF MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS 3
DOES PLEADING INSANITY NECESSARILY MEAN FREE FROM PUNISHMENT? 4
M’NAGHTEN’s RULE 5
DURHAM’S RULE 6
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE NIGERIAN LAW & ENGLISH LAW AS REGARDS THE DEFENCE OF INSANITY
7
WAYS TO ESTABLISH GROUNDS OF INSANITY & ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION ON GROUNDS OF
INSANITY 8
INSANITY PLEA IN NIGERIA USING SECTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL AND PENAL CODE 9
MENTAL DELUSION CONCEPT UNDER NIGERIAN LAW 10
CATEGORIES OF MENTAL ILLNESS/INSANITY DEFENCES UNDER THE NIGERIAN LAW 11
SCENARIOS OF HOW ONE PLEADS INSANITY UNDER THE NIGERIAN LAW 13
CASES TO SUPPORT THE PLEA OF NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY UNDER THE NIGERIAN LAW ….14

CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...14

BIBLIOGRAPHY
TABLE OF CASES TABLE OF LEGISLATION
 ADAMS V DPP
(1940) 6 W.A.C.A 74
 AMAKO V STATE
 ARISA V. THE STATE (1983) (1946) 12 W.A.C.A. 5
 BRATTY V A.G (1948) 12 W.A.C.A. 389
 CLARK V. ARIZONA
(1952) 14 W.A.C.A 158
 ECHEM V. THE STATE
 KARIMU V STATE (1952) 14 W.A.C.A. 158
 LOKE V STATE (1957) Q.B. 399
 NGENE ARUM V. THE STATE
(1959) W.R.N.L.R. 270
 R V ALICE ERIYAMREMU
 R V OMONI (1979) 51 S.C
 R V TABIGEN ARTICLES 229 AND 230 OF CRIMINAL CODE
 R V. CODERE
PENAL CODE CAP 89
 R V. INYANG
 R. V. KEMP SECTION 27 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE
 STATE V. CRENSHAW SECTION 28 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE
 STATE V. SKAGGS
SECTION 286 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE CAP 30
 STATE V. YUSUFU IDOWU
LAWS OF EASTERN NIGERIA.
 THE PEOPLE V. MCQUILLAN
SECTION 30 (2) (A) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION
SECTION 51 OF THE PENAL CODE
INTRODUCTION

INSANITY PLEA UNDER THE NIGERIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE

The plea of guiltless by reason of insanity is a defense to avoid criminal liability for persons of

unsound mind at the fabric time of the commission of an offence - i.e., the accused person was

insane and acted independent of the exercise of his/her discretion. The mental element of an

offence referred to as provision in law has got to be established before an accused person are

often convicted. Insanity and insane delusions are a number of the defenses created by the

Nigerian criminal code. The insanity defense originated in Britain in 1843 and is named after

M’NAGHTEN’s case. In many jurisdictions, legal insanity functions as an ideal defense in

acquittal. The defense of insanity is worried not with the state of mind of the defendant before or

after committing an offence. The burden of proving the defense by virtue of section 139(3) (c) of

the evidence act is on the accused person to prove he/she is sane.

There are four variations of the insanity defense that currently exist: M’Naghten rule, irrational

impulse, substantial capacity, and Durham rule.

In the case of AMAKO V STATE, the judge declared that ‘on the defense of insanity the final

rule is presumed that each person to be of sound mind, and to be of sound mind, at any time

which comes in question until the contrary is proved. An accused one that contends that he's

insane or he indeed that he suffers from insane delusion has the duty to rebut this presumption of

law which regards him as sane until the contrary is proved. As a result, he bears the burden of

proving insanity or irrational delusion.

1
WHAT IS INSANITY/LEGAL INSANITY?
Insanity is most typically encountered as a casual, unscientific term denoting mental instability

or within the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. A successful insanity defense results

in a finding of fact of not guilty by reason of insanity' that sometimes results in the defendant

being committed to a mental hospital.

According to Merriam Websters dictionary, insanity is that the unsoundness of mind or lack of

the power to grasp that forestalls one from having the mentality required by law to enter into a

specific relationship, status, or transaction that releases one from criminal or civil responsibility.

Section 51 of the penal code states that insanity is as follows ‘nothing is an offence which is

finished by someone who at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable

of knowing the character of the act, or that he's doing what's either wrong or contrary to law.

WHAT IS MENTAL ILLNESS?

Mental illness may be a psychological syndrome related to distress impairment in a part or areas

of functioning which significantly increased the chance of death, disability, or loss of freedom. It

could even be defined as an illness of the mind that manifest in behaviors that markedly deviate

from the societal norm. Most generally psychological state may be a severe style of abnormality

that make persons do acts or omissions that are contrary to societal norms and such persons may

be available in contact with police. The term folie is additionally accustomed to visit these health

problems. effective treatments for psychopathy can include medication, cognitive and behavioral

psychological therapies, psycho-social support, and learning self-management skills. There are

various styles of mental disease, they include; depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, bipolar mood

disorder, personality disorders, eating disorders

2
INSANITY PLEA IN LIAS WITH THE CONCEPT OF MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS
The “mens rea approach” and abolished Insanity defense allows a defendant to be acquitted who

lacks requisite psychological state for the crime, inconsiderately of the defendant's understanding

of wrongfulness. Some states allow folie evidence to be introduced whenever it is logically

relevant to refute the precise or subjective preparation requirement. Insanity defense, on the other

hand, can spare a defendant's life but does not exonerate him or her. The case of Clark v. Arizona

the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona's decision to limit evidence of a disturbance to insanity

claims only, doesn't violate group action. Even in those states where expert testimony referring

to provision cannot be admitted in court, it could still be used in plea negotiations and

sentencing.

The actus reus and the status are terms used to describe the tangible aspects that make up crime

mens rea .Under the M’Naghten rule ‘ every man is to be presumed sane’ to ascertain a defense

on the bottom of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the crime, ‘ the party

accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind as to not know the

character and also the quality of the act he was doing or if he knew that what he was doing was

wrong’

~MCNAUGHGTONS CASE 1843

1
M’NAGHTEN’S CASE
CLARK V ARIZONA
Https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2993532
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=mental+illness+definition&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=
%23p%Dvtubmufj2jcJ
https://jaapl.org/content/early/2021/03/31/JAAPL.200086-20
DOES PLEADING INSANITY NECESSARILY MEAN FREE FROM PUNISHMENT?
Pleading not guilty by reason of insanity does not necessarily mean an easy way out. Although

when an insanity plea is successful the defendant is free from the criminal responsibility and

liability but this doesn’t mean such a person will be allowed to return to society without a long

period psychological treatments and evaluations. There are some alternatives to the insanity plea

which are as follows

 Guilty but mentally ill : The People v. McQuillan. This plea came about when after

people who plead not guilty by reason of insanity succeeded and were put in mental

homes for a period of time and when they were reevaluated and were free to go back to

society after becoming sane still committed heinous crimes. Persons unable to prove legal

insanity are guilty but mentally ill. Such persons are treated while in prison, treatments

are either given while incarcerated or they are transferred to a maximum-security mental

hospital.

 Diminished Capacity: also known as diminished responsibility. A diminished capacity

plea is not the same as an insanity plea, it is not available in a lot of jurisdictions and

often used in cases involving murder and manslaughter. “A legal defense wherein a

defendant admits his guilt, but argues that he should not be held fully liable for his

actions due to his diminished mental state at the time.”2

The idea behind this plea is that the defendant due to a temporary mental imbalance is

incapable of having the intentions to commit that crime. The defendant must have been in
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=mental+illness+definition&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=
%23p%Dvtubmufj2jcJ

2
Team C, 'Diminished Capacity - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes' (Legal Dictionary, 2021)
<https://legaldictionary.net/diminished-capacity/> accessed 28 September 2021
 a certain mental state when he committed that act, though their sentences are reduced and

they are not fully liable for the crime because at the point of committing the act their

mental functions were diminished.

M’NAGHTEN’s RULE
In 1843 the M’Naghten rule became a popular and historic ruling when Daniel M’Naghten a

British man who was delusional feared he was being prosecuted. Believing that the person he

was about to shoot at was the Prime Minister Sir. Robert Peel instead he killed the secretary to

the Prime Minister Edward Drummond. Daniel was not found guilty because at the point when

he committed the act, he was insane. In the mid-19th century the English House of Lords stated

that: "Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and to establish a defense on the ground of

insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused

was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, and not to know the nature and

quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was

wrong."3 Cognitive insanity can be described as the inability to differentiate between right from

wrong; that is the accused not knowing the nature or quality the act committed. While volitional

is whether being able to distinguish right from wrong or not a person at the time of committing

the act is unable to abide by the law due to the insanity.

The M’Naghten prosecutes offenders based on the cognitive insanity, if they do not know that

what they are doing is wrong. The accused must be so mentally impaired to the point where he

3
The M’Naghten Rule Criminal Law, criminallaw.uslegal.com/defense-of-insanity/the-M’Naghten-rule/.
cannot process that what he is doing is morally wrong (State v. Skaggs)4 and legally wrong

(State v. Crenshaw)5.

DURHAM’S RULE
The Durham rule is also known as product rule or the product defect rule. The rule states that a

person who is mentally ill or unstable should not be convicted of a crime if the insanity was the

cause of the act or the insanity was the cause of the act. This defense has two features, the first

being that the accused person must be mentally ill or have a mental disease and the second

rudiment is that the mental disease must be the cause of the accused committing that criminal

act. An accused person is innocent until proven guilty. Section 27 of the Criminal Code states

that “Every person is presumed to be of sound mind, and to have been of sound mind at

any time which comes in question, until the contrary is proved” A person who claims to be

mentally impaired is sane until it is actually proved with evidence that, such a person is insane,

evidence such as testimony and diagnosis from a psychiatric expert.6Close relations and

neighbors should be able to testify that the defendant prior to committing the act had already

been insane. R v. Inyang

 Competence to stand trial: This is a test to determine if the defendant is

mentally ill to the point where he cannot process the court proceedings and

cannot help or assist to his advantage. It refers to the ability of the accused to

4
SKAGGS v. STATE, FindLaw caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-supreme-court/1339392.html.
5
'State V. Crenshaw' (H2o.law.harvard.edu, 2021) <https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/1425> accessed
29 September 2021.
6
'6.1 The Insanity Defense | Criminal Law' (Courses.lumenlearning.com, 2021)
<https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-criminallaw/chapter/6-1-the-insanity-defense/> accessed 28
September 2021
 hire a lawyer and understand all that will be communicated between them and

also having accurate understanding of the court proceeding. It involves an

investigation which psychiatrists will carry out examinations to determine if

the defendant can stand trial and if at the time when the illegal act was

carried out the defendant was insane. where the defendant is not competent to

stand trial, the trial is adjourned until the defendant gains competency to

stand the trial.

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE NIGERIAN LAW & ENGLISH LAW AS REGARDS

THE DEFENCE OF INSANITY
The first distinction is the phrases between the M’Naghten rule and the criminal code, while the

M’Naghten rule use ‘nature’ and ‘quality’ the criminal code uses only the term ‘nature’.

‘Nature’, being the type of offence, it is such as battery, murder, attempted murder, e.t.c and the

physical attributes of the offence. While ‘quality’ being the knowledge of consequences of doing

the act. There should be a distinction between the two terms but they must not be separated if not

it would be that the mere not knowing the nature of an illegal act and not knowing the weight of

one’s action when the act is carried out is not justified. In R v. Codere it was held that the two

terms are inseparable. Another difference in phraseology is the choice of words in the penal code

“wrong or contrary to law” while in the M’Naghten rule it talks of an accused person not

knowing that his act was ‘wrong’ the criminal code in the aspect of insanity derives its rules

from the M’Naghten rule.

It mentions the accused knowing that “he ought not to do…” the question should be whether the

accused knew that his act was wrong according to the ordinary principles of a reasonable man
rather than whether he knew it to be wrong as being contrary to law. The Penal code has codified

the notion of irresistible impulse which was not part of the formulations in the M'Naghten case.

The Criminal code has incorporated the concept of mental delusion in the last paragraph of

Section 28. While the Criminal code talks about "mental disease or natural mental infirmity", the

Penal code does not.

WAYS TO ESTABLISH GROUNDS OF INSANITY & ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION ON

GROUNDS OF INSANITY
In State v. Yusufu Idowu it was noted that though the burden of proof of insanity is on the

Defence it can be discharged if the Defence introduces some evidence suggests that it was most

probable that the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he was what he

was wrong and contrary to the law. A problem or contraction with the insanity plea is that a person

suffering from a mental disorder does not automatically mean the person is insane. Not every mental

disease is extreme and means a person is insane.

INSANITY PLEA IN NIGERIA USING SECTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL AND PENAL

CODE
Section 51 of the Penal Code defines insanity as 'Nothing is done by a person who is incapable

of knowing that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law'.’7Section 27 of the criminal

code provides that every person is presumed to be of sound mind and at any time which comes in

question, until the contrary is proved.

A person would be regarded insane if they are suffering from a mental disorder at the time of

committing a crime or offence. Every person, whether healthy or not, is considered by law to be

healthy until it has been established that he is suffering from a disease, mental or insane delirium.

7
Penal code Cap 89
If someone is suspected of actually committing the crime but was insane at the time, the verdict

may be not insane. In the case of Bratty v, A.G,8 Lord Denning stated insanity is ‘’A disease of

the mind as any disorder that has manifested itself in violence in and is prone to re-occur at any

rate is a sort of disease for which a person should be detained in hospital, rather than being given

an unqualified acquittal by the court.”

MENTAL DELUSION CONCEPT UNDER NIGERIAN LAW

Mental illness is a psychological syndrome associated with distress, impairment in one or more

areas of functioning and greatly increases the risk of death, disability or loss of liberty. It does

not occur simply as predictable response to a disturbing life event such as bereavement but it is

assumed that this is a manifestation of a psychological or biological dysfunction. Mental illness

is an abnormality which leads people to commit acts or omissions that are contrary to social

norms.9 Insanity, a legal is the basis for imputing criminal liability.10 Whenever a plea of

innocence for insanity is raised, the task of the court of first instance is clarifying the following

questions:

 Whether the alleged crime was actually committed,

 Whether the accused committed the crime, and
 Whether he was insane at the time of the committing the crime.
9

In the case of Loke v State11, the defendant was charged with manslaughter, pleaded not guilty

of madness at trial, established the defendant to be insane at the time crime was committed, but

the court of first instance dismissed the evidence. In Adams v Dpp12, the appeal was dismissed

and the appeals court, citing Articles 229 and 230 of Criminal code, found the warrant to be
8
Bratty v A.G(1961) UKHL 3
9
ibid
10
ibid
11
Loke v State (1985) 1 AII NLR 1
12
Adams v Dpp (1960) AII NLR 12
appropriate in the circumstances in Karimu v State13 after a determination was not found guilty

of insanity. To establish a Defence on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved, that at the

time of committing the act, the party accused was suffering from a mental disease as not to know

the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it. Section 28 of the code was by

the West African Court of Appeal in R v Omoni14 The accused in that case had killed his victim

to avenge his mother’s death and the only evidence adduced by the Defence was that of the

accused himself. Rejecting his Defence based on insanity, the court defined ‘natural mental

infirmity’ as “a defect in mental power neither produced by his accused own default nor the

result of the disease of the mind”. That decision was adopted in R v Tabigen15 by the Federal

Supreme Court. i.e., in R v Alice Eriyamremu16 the accused had killed her granddaughter

following an alleged instruction by her fellow witches to do so. Rejecting the Defence of insanity

the court ruled that the infirmity disclosed was not a natural mental infirmity

CATEGORIES OF MENTAL ILLNESS/INSANITY DEFENCES UNDER THE

NIGERIAN LAW
According to the provisions of the Nigerian law, there are different mental conditions and

10

illnesses that can influence a person’s accountability and liability for a crime and they include;

 a person might do an act that is not in accordance with the law in a position of weakened
awareness resulting from insanity or internal source. Here, the act is not voluntary and it
is regarded as automatism.
 a situation where the concerned individual might do intentional actions that constitute the
actus reus of the crime but due to his mental condition, they may not be aware of what
they’re doing.

13
Karimu v State (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 96) 124
14
R v Omoni (1949) 12 W.A.C.A. 511
15
R v Tabigen (1960) 5 F.S.C.8
16
R v Eriyamremu (1959) W.R.N.L.R. 270
  a situation where the concerned individual may be aware of the action, he is carrying out
but due to his mental condition, he is not aware that it is wrong.
 a situation where the concerned individual is aware of what he is doing and also knows
that his actions are not right but due to a mental condition, he is not able to keep his
actions in check and control the action.
 The fifth category is a situation where the concerned individual is aware of what he is
doing, knows that its wrong but he is in a state of psychological misapprehension that
makes him believe that he is doing the right thing17.

 Mental Disease: In the case of R. v. Kemp 18, where the accused seriously harmed his

wife’s body, the accused was held liable for injuring his wife even after pleading insanity.

The judge stated that ‘The law is not concerned with the brain but with the mind in the

sense that the mind is the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding. If one

reads for ‘disease of the mind’ ’disease of the brain’ ‘it would follow that in many cases

insanity will not be established because it would not be proved that the brain could not

been affected in any way, either by degeneration of the cells or by any other way. In my

judgment, the condition of the brain is irrelevant and so is the question of whether the

condition of the mind is curable or incurable, transitory or permanent”19

11

 Natural Mental Illness: In the case of R. v. Alice Eriyamremu, the accused

party had killed her granddaughter on the instruction of her fellow witch

17
Abiama Emmanuel E., 'Mental Illness and Insanity in the Nigerian Law' (2015) 20 IOSR journal
https://www.iosrjournals.org accessed 1 October 2021.
18
(1957) Q.B. 399
19
Abiama Emmanuel E., 'Mental Illness and Insanity in the Nigerian Law' (2015) 20 IOSR journal
https://www.iosrjournals.org accessed 1 October 2021.
 mates. The court however rejected her Defence of plea of insanity as this is

not in any way related to natural mental infirmity. 20

 Uncontrollable Impulse: In Echem v. The State 21

, the accused was charged for

murder and he pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity because of the injury

he had earlier sustained. It was medically proven that, the injury he sustained

was capable of affecting his brain at interval, although the accused might

know what he was doing, he couldn’t have been able to control his actions.

The accused was not held legally liable. However, in the case of Arisa v. The

State (1983), the accused also pleaded insanity and even had medical

backing but his own case was judged differently because the situations that

followed his own case showed that he could control his own actions but he

didn’t. 22

 Insane Delusion: In the case of Ngene Arum v. The State 23

, where an accused

person who was delusional thought that a man was going to kill him so he

killed the man and said he acted in self-defense,

12

he was exempted from criminal liability in accordance with Section 30 (2) (a) of the

1999 Constitution and Section 286 of the Criminal Code, Cap 30 Laws of Eastern

Nigeria. 24

20
Abiama Emmanuel E., 'Mental Illness and Insanity in the Nigerian Law' (2015) 20 IOSR journal
https://www.iosrjournals.org accessed 1 October 2021.
21
(1952) 14 W.A.C.A 158
22
Abiama Emmanuel E., 'Mental Illness and Insanity in the Nigerian Law' (2015) 20 IOSR journal
https://www.iosrjournals.org accessed 1 October 2021.
23
(1979) 51 S.C
24
Abiama Emmanuel E., 'Mental Illness and Insanity in the Nigerian Law' (2015) 20 IOSR journal
https://www.iosrjournals.org accessed 1 October 2021.
SCENARIOS OF HOW ONE PLEADS INSANITY UNDER THE NIGERIAN LAW
A woman who visits the home of a family of has a friend. None of the family members know

that she is highly bipolar. While eating, she suddenly took her fork and stabbed the 10-year-old

child. She is sued to court by the parents of the child for murder but she pleads not guilty by

reason of insanity, she explains her issue of bipolarity and is backed up by medical evidence that

shows that she is bipolar and she acted in such manner because she had her maniac period. The

court can on this basis exonerate the woman because although she was aware of her actions, she

was unable to control her actions hence, she can be excused on these grounds and get enrolled

into a mental institution for proper treatment. A police man attends a party and no one at the party is

aware of this man’s mental illness and state of depression. While he gets there, in possession of a

licensed gun, while having a good time, a fellow party goer spills his drink on the man and walks away

rudely. The man immediately pulls out his gun and shoots him which results to his death and he begins

to scream and cry. He is sued to court by the family of the deceased man but he plead on the grounds of

insanity. This claim is backed up by psychiatric and mental experts that shows that he truly suffers from

mental illness and depression. The court found him not guilty by reason of insanity but thereby sent to a

mental asylum for treatments.

13

CASES TO SUPPORT THE PLEA OF NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY

UNDER THE NIGERIAN LAW
 R v. Ogor25
 R v. Alice Eriyarhremu26
 Echem v. R27
 R v. Nasamu28
25
(1961) 1 All N.L.R. 70
26
(1959) W.R.N.L.R. 270
27
(1952) 14 W.A.C.A. 158
28
(1940) 6 W.A.C.A 74
  R v. Inyang29
 R v. Ashigifuwo30

CONCLUSION
Mental illness is the foundation of insanity and insanity plea is the foundation for exoneration

from criminal liability and responsibility. The Nigerian law has a different legal position about

insanity and insanity plea. The already laid down laws should be amended to include adequate

treatment for persons who have been found insane.

Any medical practitioner who makes false results in order to help a criminal escape justice under

disguise of mental illness and or insanity should be dealt with accordingly.31

14

BIBLIOGRAPHY
'6.1 The Insanity Defense | Criminal Law' (Courses.lumenlearning.com, 2021)
<https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-criminallaw/chapter/6-1-the-insanity-defense/> accessed 28 September
2021

Abiama Emmanuel E., 'Mental Illness and Insanity in the Nigerian Law' (2015) 20 IOSR journal
https://www.iosrjournals.org accessed 1 October 2021.
Abiama Emmanuel E., 'Mental Illness and Insanity in the Nigerian Law' (2015) 20 IOSR journal
https://www.iosrjournals.org accessed 1 October 2021.
Abiama Emmanuel E., 'Mental Illness and Insanity in the Nigerian Law' (2015) 20 IOSR journal
https://www.iosrjournals.org accessed 1 October 2021.
Abiama Emmanuel E., 'Mental Illness and Insanity in the Nigerian Law' (2015) 20 IOSR journal
https://www.iosrjournals.org accessed 1 October 2021.
Abiama Emmanuel E., 'Mental Illness and Insanity in the Nigerian Law' (2015) 20 IOSR journal

https://www.iosrjournals.org accessed 1 October 2021.

29
(1946) 12 W.A.C.A. 5
30
(1948) 12 W.A.C.A. 389
31
Abiama Emmanuel E., 'Mental Illness and Insanity in the Nigerian Law' (2015) 20 IOSR journal
https://www.iosrjournals.org accessed 1 October 2021.
Abiama Emmanuel E., 'Mental Illness and Insanity in the Nigerian Law' (2015) 20 IOSR journal
https://www.iosrjournals.org accessed 1 October 2021.
Adams v Dpp (1960) AII NLR 12
Bratty v A.G(1961) UKHL 3
ibid
ibid
Karimu v State (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 96) 124

Loke v State (1985) 1 AII NLR 1

• M’NAGHTEN’S CASE
R v Eriyamremu (1959) W.R.N.L.R. 270
R v Tabigen (1960) 5 F.S.C.8
SKAGGS v. STATE, FindLaw caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-supreme-court/1339392.html.
SKAGGS v. STATE, FindLaw caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-supreme-court/1339392.html.
'State V. Crenshaw' (H2o.law.harvard.edu, 2021) <https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/1425> accessed 29
September 2021.
The M’Naghten Rule Criminal Law, criminallaw.uslegal.com/defense-of-insanity/the-M’Naghten

(1961) 1 All N.L.R. 70

CLARK V ARIZONA
https://jaapl.org/content/early/2021/03/31/JAAPL.200086-20
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=mental+illness+definition&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=
%23p%Dvtubmufj2jcJ
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=mental+illness+definition&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=
%23p%Dvtubmufj2jcJ
Https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2993532
Penal code Cap 89
R v Omoni (1949) 12 W.A.C.A. 511
Team C, 'Diminished Capacity - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes' (Legal Dictionary, 2021)
<https://legaldictionary.net/diminished-capacity/> accessed 28 September 2021
The M’Naghten Rule Criminal Law, criminallaw.uslegal.com/defense-of-insanity/the-M’Naghten-rule/.