Is It Lawful To Punish One For Another’s Crime?

The reported ordeal of 89-year-old Pa Everestus Okereke and his eldest son, Ugochukwu Okereke, in Imo State has raised a fundamental question of justice: can a person lawfully be punished for a crime allegedly committed by another?

A recent media report claimed that Pa Okereke and his son have spent about a decade in custody following a 2016 incident in which another man was killed. According to the reports, the two men were sentenced to death by hanging in September 2022, while another relative allegedly linked to the incident reportedly fled and remains missing.

The case was recently brought into public focus by prison evangelist Christian Chuka, who expressed concern about the prolonged incarceration of the elderly man and his son and the circumstances surrounding their conviction.

These are serious allegations that deserve urgent attention. From media reports alone, it is impossible to determine whether the two men are innocent or guilty. If a competent court, after a fair trial, found them guilty on credible evidence, that judgment must be respected. But where serious questions arise about the evidence or circumstances of a conviction, particularly where there are allegations that individuals may have been punished for another person’s actions, the appropriate response is judicial scrutiny through the lawful channels available.

Article 7(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which has the force of law in Nigeria by virtue of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, states that “punishment is personal and can be imposed only on the offender.”

This is a fundamental principle in law. Criminal responsibility is personal. A person cannot lawfully be punished simply because he is related to a suspect or even a culprit.

Article 7 of the African Charter also guarantees the right to have one’s cause heard, the right to appeal, the presumption of innocence, the right to defence by counsel and the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal.

The 1999 Constitution similarly guarantees fair hearing and provides that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty. These safeguards exist because the consequences of a miscarriage of justice can be irreversible.

That concern becomes even more compelling when a death sentence is involved.

The reported circumstances of the Okereke case therefore warrant urgent examination through the appropriate judicial and legal procedures. The central question is simple: were Pa Okereke and his son convicted on evidence establishing their own participation in the crime, or did their relationship with another suspect influence the case? Did the accused have competent legal representation? What evidence did the trial court rely on in imposing the death sentence? Was an appeal filed, and if so, what was the outcome?

These questions are not issues of opinion but matters for the courts, based on the case records and the evidence on which the conviction was founded.

We therefore call on the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to urgently examine the matter, which is within its mandate. The Commission should obtain and review the relevant case records, meet the two men and their lawyers, investigate the circumstances surrounding their arrest and detention, and determine whether any human-rights violations occurred.

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) should also intervene, particularly through its human-rights and public-interest structures, to ensure that the men have access to competent legal representation and that every lawful avenue for challenging their conviction is explored.

The Legal Aid Council, human-rights organisations and other relevant justice-sector institutions should provide assistance where necessary.

No conviction, particularly one carrying the death penalty, should be beyond scrutiny where credible and material questions about the evidence or fairness of the proceedings remain unresolved through the legal process.

The Nigerian State owes justice not only to the family of the man who was killed but also to the accused. The deceased deserves justice; the accused deserve justice. Both are entitled to a justice system that establishes individual responsibility on the basis of credible evidence, fair hearing and due process.

If the evidence establishes that Pa Okereke and his son participated in the crime, the law should take its course. But if judicial review establishes that either or both men were wrongly convicted, the justice system must have the courage to correct the wrong.

At 89, Pa Okereke should not be left to approach the end of his life under the shadow of an unresolved question over whether he was personally responsible for the crime for which he has been condemned.

Even more importantly, no Nigerian — young or old — should ever be punished for another person’s crime.

Finally, this may not be an isolated case. We, therefore, urge the above-listed bodies, the NHRC, NBA, Legal Aid Council and related civil society organisations to collaborate and engage with custodial centres across the country to help free all those innocent Nigerians who may be incarcerated for the crimes of others.