Abégúndé Òjó

10 things you need to know about arrest and search: 1. Search in a premises or house can be conducted between 5:00 AM and 8:00 PM, except the court directs or authorises otherwise. 2. Arrest can be done at any time of the day or night. No time that an arrest cannot be effected. 3. An arrest can be done with or without warrant. It is not in all cases that an arrest must be done with warrant. There are at least 10 instances that an arrest can be done without a warrant. 4. An arrest of one person cannot be effected in place or in lieu of another person or for the purpose of luring another person to show up. 5. A private person has the right or power to arrest another person upon reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is likely to be committed or the person escapes from lawful custody. But the suspect must be handed over to the appropriate authority within reasonable tome. 6. A man cannot search a woman. A woman cannot search a man. Except there is no officer of the same gender to conduct the search. 7. The arresting officer must immediately inform the suspect of the reason for their arrest, unless they are caught in the actual commission of the crime. 8. A suspect must not be handcuffed, bound, or subjected to unnecessary restraint unless there is a reasonable risk of escape, violence, or for public safety or safety of the suspect. 9. To carry out an arrest or search of a person, access to a house or place cannot be obtained voluntarily. But where access is not granted, an officer may break open or destroy any outer or inner door or window of any house or place. 10. If the house or place is in the actual occupancy of a woman who by custom or religious practice does not appear in public, the officer must give notice to the woman that she is at liberty to withdraw before entering the premises.

Some days ago, I saw a conversation about a woman killing her child(children) and people blamed it on post-birth hormones. I wanted to share my thought on the matter but I resisted because matters like that are delicate and very sensitive. Even if I must, any contribution to it must either come from a position of knowledge or experience. I just finished the reading the case of Oladele v. The State decided by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in 1993. Now I can share my thoughts on it, having read a case law which deals with a mother killing her own child. In that case, the Appellant, a mother of 3 was sent out of her matrimonial home by her husband over a misunderstanding to stay with her father. One day, after bathing the 3 children as early as 6am, she took them out of the house too a far away bush, macheted one to death, one sustained severe injuries from the cut and she returned home with one. When her father woke up and called on her, he only saw her with one of the children and asked her where the rest of the kids were and in her response she said "they were somewhere far away" and she started running away, until the father called on people who arrested her. The people began a search and found the dead child, and the other who had sustained severe injuries from the cut. The mother was charged to Court for murder and after the trial, she was found guilty and sentenced to death. She appealed to the Court of Appeal and her appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal confirmed her death sentenced. She then appealed further to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and considered the defence of insanity raised by the mother, who had killed the child. According to her (both at the trial Court and Court of Appeal), she did not know what came over her to kill her own child because she loved the 3 children so dearly. She also gave evidence of the fact that she had history of mental disorder, which her husband and her father confirmed that both of them had taken her to a traditional doctor for treatment. The doctor who also treated her while she was in prison was called upon to give evidence and based on the observations and narrations by the nurses who attended to her, the appellant (the mother) was suffering from a mental illness called "schizophrenia psychosis" The tests applied by the Court, when a defence of insanity is raised, were that: 1. the person did not have the capacity to understand what was done; 2. the person lacked the capacity to control the action; and 3. capacity to know that she should not do the act or make the omission. The Court reasoned that where a person is taken to a mental hospital for treatment and the Doctor in charge gave evidence of insanity based on his observations, the presumption of sanity is rebutted. In the end, the apex Court unanimously (5 Justices) concluded that she was indeed insane (suffering from mental disorder characterised by multiple psychological functions through the eyes, ears, disturbances for emotions of thinking, behaviour) found her not guilty or murder and set aside the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the Court of Appeal. From the above case, and my little readings on severe postpartum disorders specifically Postpartum Psychosis, a mother can lose touch with reality and tragically harm or kill her child. But the strength of this proposition lies in the opinion of a medical expert upon proper examination and diagnosis. It is not something one can just brush aside or jump on by common sense and logic. Even by that, no sane person will decide to kill their own child just for the fun or it. There is definitely more and only experts can say.