Police arrest masquerade over alleged killing of 24-year-old man in Ibadan

The recent arrest of a masquerade and its followers in Ibadan, Oyo State, over the alleged killing of a 24-year-old man highlights the complex interplay between traditional cultural practices and Nigeria's criminal justice system. This incident underscores the legal principles of criminal responsibility for group actions, particularly concerning common intention and aiding and abetting, as enshrined in the Criminal Code Act. While cultural expression is constitutionally protected, it does not confer immunity from criminal liability for acts of violence. The case brings to the fore the ongoing challenges faced by law enforcement in regulating traditional processions to ensure public order and safety, especially when such events are marred by criminality and loss of life.

The recent arrest of a masquerade, identified as Asoleke, and its followers in the Labiran area of Ibadan, Oyo State, following the alleged fatal assault of a 24-year-old man, Sefiu Kehinde, has drawn sharp focus to the intersection of traditional cultural practices and criminal law in Nigeria. The police spokesperson reported that the victim sustained severe injuries from axes and cutlasses during a procession, leading to his death. This incident is not isolated, reflecting a growing concern across various Nigerian states regarding the weaponization of cultural displays and the resultant breakdown of public order.

This development necessitates a comprehensive examination of the legal framework governing criminal liability for group actions, particularly in the context of public assemblies and traditional processions. For legal practitioners, understanding the nuances of common intention, aiding and abetting, and the limits of cultural immunity is crucial. The article will delve into the relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents to clarify the extent of criminal responsibility when individuals, under the guise of cultural expression, engage in acts that lead to grievous harm or death.

The core legal question revolves around how the Nigerian legal system attributes criminal culpability to individuals participating in a group act that results in a felony, especially when the direct perpetrator may be obscured by the collective nature of the event. This incident serves as a critical reminder that while cultural heritage is valued, it operates within the confines of the law, and no custom or tradition can supersede the fundamental right to life and public safety.

Nigeria operates a dual criminal law system, with the Criminal Code Act applicable in the Southern States, including Oyo State, and the Penal Code Act in the Northern States. Under the Criminal Code, the unlawful killing of another person under specific circumstances, such as intending to cause death or grievous harm, constitutes murder. Murder is a capital offence in Nigeria, punishable by death.

Crucially, Nigerian criminal law extends liability beyond the direct perpetrator to those who participate in the commission of an offence through common intention or by aiding and abetting. Section 8 of the Criminal Code Act stipulates that when two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose, and an offence is committed as a probable consequence of that purpose, each person is deemed to have committed the offence. Similarly, Section 7 of the Criminal Code Act defines principal offenders to include not only those who actually commit the act, but also those who do or omit to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence, or who counsel or procure its commission. This legal doctrine ensures that individuals who provide support, encouragement, or assistance, whether physical or moral, are held equally responsible as the main offender.

Furthermore, public gatherings and processions, including traditional ones, are regulated by the Public Order Act 1979. While the Supreme Court has clarified that police permits are not a prerequisite for holding peaceful assemblies, the Act empowers state governors to direct the conduct of such events and police officers to disperse unlawful assemblies or those violating conditions. The Act also prohibits offensive weapons at meetings and processions, underscoring the state's role in maintaining public peace and order.

The arrest of the Asoleke masquerade and its followers will likely trigger an investigation into the elements of murder and the principles of joint criminal liability. For a charge of murder to succeed, the prosecution must prove that the deceased died, that the act causing death was unlawful, and that the act was intentional with the knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was a probable consequence. The challenge in cases involving groups, especially those where identities might be obscured by costumes, lies in establishing the specific intent and actions of each individual.

This is where the doctrines of common intention and aiding and abetting become pivotal. Under Section 8 of the Criminal Code, if the masquerade and its followers had a common unlawful purpose – for instance, to cause harm or engage in violent conduct during their procession – and the killing of Sefiu Kehinde was a probable consequence of that purpose, then all participants in that common purpose could be held liable for murder. Judicial pronouncements, such as in *Mohan v. The State (2013)*, affirm that where a common intention to kill exists, the identity of the person who struck the fatal blow is irrelevant; all who participated are equally guilty.

The concept of aiding and abetting, as outlined in Section 7 of the Criminal Code, further broadens the scope of liability. Individuals who, by their presence, actions, or omissions, knowingly assisted, encouraged, or facilitated the attack, can be deemed principal offenders. This could include followers who carried weapons, actively participated in the assault, or even those who stood by in a manner that lent moral support to the perpetrators, knowing that a crime was being committed. The prosecution would need to demonstrate knowledge and intent on the part of those accused of aiding and abetting.

The cultural dimension of masquerades, while constitutionally protected as a form of expression and worship, does not provide a shield against criminal prosecution for violent acts. Legal scholars and government officials have increasingly emphasized that culture ends where another's life begins, asserting that criminal acts committed under the guise of tradition must be treated as such. This position is consistent with the principle that there is no customary criminal law in Nigeria; all criminal offences must be defined and penalized by written law. Therefore, any attempt to invoke cultural immunity for murder or grievous assault would be legally untenable.

Comparative legal perspectives show similar challenges in balancing cultural rights with public safety. In Nigeria, there have been calls for stricter enforcement of existing laws, registration of masquerade groups, and clear penalties for those who exploit traditional displays for illicit activities. The Public Order Act provides the regulatory framework for processions, and any deviation into violence or the carrying of offensive weapons during such events can lead to legal consequences for the organizers and participants.

The arrest of the Asoleke masquerade and its followers in Ibadan serves as a stark reminder to legal practitioners and the public alike that cultural practices, however revered, are subject to the rule of law. The Nigerian criminal justice system, through provisions on murder, common intention, and aiding and abetting, provides robust mechanisms for holding individuals accountable for violent acts, irrespective of the context in which they occur. The incident underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the sanctity of life and maintaining public order.

Practitioners should anticipate rigorous prosecution in such cases, with a strong focus on establishing the elements of murder and the collective criminal responsibility of all involved parties. Defence strategies that rely solely on cultural immunity are unlikely to succeed, given the clear statutory framework. This case also highlights the ongoing need for dialogue between traditional institutions and law enforcement to ensure that cultural expressions are conducted peacefully and do not infringe upon the rights and safety of citizens. Moving forward, continued vigilance and proactive measures by authorities, coupled with community engagement, will be essential to prevent the exploitation of cultural events for criminal purposes and to reinforce the principle that no one is above the law.