The State v Audu (1972): A Travesty

                             I 

The facts of this case are tragic and involve the rape of a minor. The victim-survivor was a nine-year old girl who sold fruits in Gusau, in the old North-Western State. On 23 May 1970, the victim-survivor met the accused person (a 39-year old man) while hawking mangoes. On the pretext that he wanted to purchase some mangoes, the accused person lured the victim-survivor into his living quarters and raped her. He was subsequently apprehended by the police and prosecuted in the High Court at Sokoto.

                II

At the trial, the prosecution successfully established that the accused person committed statutory rape. He was accordingly convicted on June 29, 1971. Remarkably, the trial judge, M. Muhammed, J., handed down a lenient sentence of three years’ imprisonment. Trivialising the gravity of the crime, the trial judge was so “moved by sentiment” in favour of the accused person that he also proceeded to suspend the prison sentence. The judge, unabashedly, declared as follows:

                             III

“. . . [O]n the evidence, I am more inclined to believe that the sexual intercourse in question came about more from the deep love which the accused [person] has for [the victim-survivor] and which love is unmistakably reciprocated by her. For in spite of the damage caused her by the accused through that intercourse, she did not mince her words in declaring in open court that she was prepared to marry him if she would be allowed to do so.”

                             IV

Subsequently, the Director of Public Prosecutions of the North-Western State filed an appeal against the decision of the trial judge. In its judgment on 15 June 1972, the Supreme Court faulted the trial judge for handing down a suspended sentence on the basis that this type of sentence was not contemplated by the laws of the North-Western State of Nigeria where the crime was committed. The three Supreme Court justices who heard the appeal (Taslim Elias CJN, Egbert Udo Udoma, and Atanda Fatayi-Williams JJSC) deplored the grievousness of the crime and confirmed the three-year prison sentence “without the qualification of suspension.”

                           V

However, in an ignominious volte-face, the Supreme Court then proceeded to urge the authorities to exercise the prerogative of mercy in favour of the respondent—i.e. the man convicted in the High Court—on the grounds that he had publicly indicated his intention to marry the victim-survivor.

                             VI

Taslim O. Elias (the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, who delivered the unanimous judgment of the Court) declared as follows: “The respondent, who appeared in person before us [in the Supreme Court] and to whom all the proceedings were duly interpreted by an official interpreter, expressed a desire to marry the girl, now aged eleven years, as soon as her parents would permit. We, however, consider that this fact should not affect our view of the enormity of his crime against a young girl of 9 years. We would, however, add a recommendation to mercy for consideration by the appropriate authorities provided, as he asserted before us, the respondent takes immediate steps towards marrying [the victim-survivor].”

SOURCE:—THE STATE VS HASSAN AUDU (1972) LCN/1409(SC). For the full law report, see: https://lawcarenigeria.com/the-state-vs-hassan-audu-2/