MUSA V. STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 207 ON DEFINITION OF WITCHCRAFT Witchcraft is the use of magic powers, especially evil ones. (P. 246, para. D) MUSA V. STATE…
YAKUBU V. STATE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 233 ON EFFECT OF FAILURE OF TRIAL COURT TO RECORD USE OF INTERPRETER IN SUBSEQUENT TRIAL DAYS WHERE RECORDS USE OF AT…
The purpose of raising issues for determination in an appeal is to identify what is in issue in the complaints against specified and identified portions of the judgment appealed against in the grounds of appeal. Just as the grounds of appeal from which they are raised, the issues for determination must raise questions concerning the particular portion of the judgment complained against in the ground or grounds of appeal so as to enable the determination of the real questions in controversy in the grounds of appeal. (P. 243, paras. G-H).
The purpose or objective or intendment of a legislative provision that vests a public duty on a public officer for the benefit of any person is to make the execution or performance of the duty mandatory, irrespective of whether it is a permissive or mandatory word that is used to impose the duty. So that where, as in this present case, the permissive or discretionary word ‘may’ is used to impose a duty on a public officer to observe or protect the right of an arrested suspect not to be forced to confess that he committed the offence he is suspected of committing, the courts have consistently, over time, decided that the word ‘may’ is legislatively intended to impose a mandatory duty to observe and protect the right of the arrested suspect against forced self-incrimination. (P. 483, paras. B-D).
