State v Golu [1979] PGNC 1; N180 (29 January 1979)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N180

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
THE STATE
V
GOLI GOLU

Waigani

Saldanha J
11-12 January 1979
15-20 January 1979
29 January 1979

CRIMINAL LAW - wilful murder - effect of police statements made and evidence given at committal proceedings by prosecution witnesses being put in evidence by defence counsel to contradict evidence of prosecution witnesses.

SALDANHA J: The accused is charged with the wilful murder of a man by the name of Kila Vaula. The case for the prosecution is briefly as follows.

The accused is a young man of some 26 years of age. He was employed in the Malarction of the Public Health alth Department as a sprayer and at the material time was living in a camp and working at Gaire which is approximately half way between Port Moresby and Kwikila, which lies in a south-easterly direction about 68 miles from Port Moresby. Before being posted to Gaire the accused had been working for some time at Kwikila.

The accused is from Gunugau Village which is about 25-30 miles by road from Kwikila. The deceased was a man from Gabone Village which, I assume, is near Gunugau Village.

The trouble between the Gunugaus and the Gabones goes back a few years. There have been disputes and fights between the two clans over land. The deceased was killed on the morning of the 18th August 1978. A week or two before that day there had been a fight between the two clans which led to about eight or nine Gunugaus and Gabones being prosecuted for riotous behaviour. The case was to be heard at the Kwikila Local Court on the 18th August 1978.

The Gunugaus and Gabones were expected to attend the proceedings in some numbers and the police at Kwikila anticipating trouble had set up road blocks with a view to preventing the Gunugaus and Gabones from bringing weapons into Kwikila. Policemen had been detailed to search for weapons persons who had assembled in the area of the court house. In addition to the policemen who have given evidence at this trial there were policemen in attendance in the vicinity of the court house for the purpose of preventing a breach of the peace and particularly a flare-up between the two rival clans, although their precise number is not known.

In order to appreciate what happened at Kwikila on that day it is necessary to know the situation of the court house and other buildings in the neighbourhood, the position of the roads, particularly Laruni Parade and Kwikila Road, and to have an idea of the nature of the area in the vicinity of and surrounding the court house. A look at the sketch, Exhibit Pl, will give one a clearer picture of the scene than any amount of description. However, as it is necessary to know the roads and the buildings in relation to the court house in order to appreciate the evidence and the judgment I will give a brief description of the scene.

The front of the court house faces more or less north. Further north is situated the Kwikila Council Chambers and between the two buildings is a parking area with an entrance on Laruni Parade which is adjacent to the court house and the Council Chambers on their eastern side and runs in a straight line from the north-west to the south-east. Laruni Parade forms a T-junction with the Kwikila-Port Moresby road at its south-easterly extremity and the T-junction is about 150 yards from the court house. On the other side of Laruni Parade and more or less opposite to the court house there are shops and stores and further south bounded on two sides by Laruni Parade and the Kwikila-Port Moresby road is the market area. Immediately next to the court house and to its west is a building of about the same size and shape as the court house. This building and two smaller buildings to the south of the court house have been referred to by witnesses as the Council married employees’ quarters. The small building to the west is Tau Bae’s house which has featured so prominently in this case.

The evidence adduced by the prosecution against the accused is mainly that of the policemen who were present at the scene of the fighting and what the accused himself said in his record of interview.

Constable Ene Napao was to prosecute the offenders for riotous behaviour. He arrived at the court house between 9 and 9.30 a.m. He found the Gabones sitting at the back of the court house. Shortly afterwards he saw some of the Gunugaus arrive in a small Holden car. He was about to inform the magistrate that the two rival factions were present when he heard some noise coming from the back of the court house. He went out to investigate.

He found that the Gunugaus had attacked the Gabones at the place where the Gabones had been sitting. The Gunugaus greatly out-numbered the Gabones and all the Gabones but one took to their heels. The lone Gabone had been held by some of the Gunugaus and was being punched by them. The police rescued this man whereupon he too fled for his life as the other Gabones had done. The Gabones had fled towards the market area and to the other side of the Kwikila Road for a distance of at least 150 yards.

While the policemen were endeavouring to restrain the Gunugaus from chasing the Gabones and trying to persuade them not to continue fighting Constable Napao heard the words “bring knives” being uttered in Motu three or four times and coming from among the Gunugaus. He saw several Gunugaus run to the front of the court house and arm themselves with bush knives from a small car parked in the parking area. They came to the place where the fighting had started and advanced towards the direction in which the Gabones had fled.

He saw the accused and another man, whom he did not know but who he later came to know as Raga Raga, with bush knives which they were waving in the air while running and shouting. He saw them run along Laruni Parade, turn right at the T-junction with Kwikila Road and continue running not on the road but within the boundary of the Council employees’ quarters and parallel to Kwikila Road. He took his eyes off the accused and Raga Raga momentarily. As mentioned earlier, he was among the policemen who were trying to restrain the Gunugaus from pursuing and attacking the Gabones. When next he looked in their direction he saw the deceased lying on the ground flat on his belly with the accused standing near the deceased’s head and facing the deceased and Raga Raga with a bush knife standing by the deceased’s legs. He saw the deceased raise his head slightly and saw the accused strike the deceased on the left side of the head causing deceased’s head to jerk downwards. He saw the accused strike another blow with the knife in the same region and this time deceased’s head collapsed.

Accused and Raga Raga then ran back in the direction from which they had come waving their knives in the air and shouting in a language which Constable Napao did not understand. He saw the accused run along Laruni Parade in front of the market and noticed that the knife was blood-stained and appeared to have been recently sharpened. The accused went to the parking area where other Gunugaus were yelling and shouting. Upon being ordered by the police they got into a truck, and, standing at the back yelling and shouting and waving their bush knives in the air, they were driven slowly along Laruni Parade to Gunugau Village.

After the Gunugaus had gone Constable Napao went to the place where the deceased was lying. He noticed two or three big cuts on the left side of his head in the region of the ear. He was dead.

One of the policemen on duty on that day was Constable Mohi Ivape. After the fighting had stopped and the Gunugaus had gone he went to the place where the body of the deceased was lying. He recognized him as being the man whom he had found lying on the ground unconscious and whom he had carried to Tau Bae’s house.

Constable Ivape’s evidence is briefly as follows. He had arrived at the court house at about 9 a.m. and seen the Gabones sitting at the back of the court house. He went to the market area where he stayed for some time and while he was there he saw some young Gunugaus, the accused among them, arriving on foot and walking towards the court house. Shortly afterwards when he went to the court house he found that fighting had already started between the Gunugaus and the Gabones. At first they fought with fists but later used sticks and stones. He joined the other policemen in trying to stop the fighting.

After about five minutes had elapsed he heard someone from the Gunugau group shout in Motu “get the knives”. When he looked round to see who had uttered these words he saw a man lying on the ground unconscious. He hoisted this man on to his shoulders and carried him to Tau Bae’s house. Before entering he looked back and saw the accused and another man armed with bush knives. On leaving the house two women and a man called for his assistance. He escorted them to another building and locked them inside. He ran back towards the court house and a few minutes later heard Sgt. Unido announce that a man had been killed. He saw the accused running up and down Laruni Parade waving a bush knife in the air and shouting in a language he did not understand. The accused ran up and down twice and he noticed that the knife was blood-stained. The accused was then driven away in a P.M.V. which was parked in front of the court house.

After the accused had left as mentioned earlier Mohi Ivape went to where deceased was lying and noticed that deceased had three cut wounds on his neck.

Constable James Turan was on special duty on guard at the court house. He got to the court house at about 9 a.m. The Gabones had arrived and after speaking to them for a while he went for a drink to a shop on the other side of Laruni Parade. He returned to the court house shortly afterwards and found that the Gunugaus had arrived in his absence. He saw a Gunugau punch a Gabone and saw the Gabone retaliate. Soon the fighting spread and fist blows gave way to stones, sticks and spades. James Turan joined the other policemen in trying to stop the fight.

He saw a man lying on the ground unconscious and he stood over him to prevent him being assaulted while Constable Ivape hoisted him on to his shoulders and took him in the direction of the two small houses at the back of the court house. He saw the accused holding a bush knife shouting and running from the front of the court house in the direction where deceased’s body was later found. His attention was distracted by another man with a bush knife who ran past him. He tried to run after him with a view to disarming him but was unable to do so because of the crowd which was armed with sticks and spades.

After the fighting stopped the accused ran past him with a blood-stained knife which he was waving in the air. The accused ran to the market area dancing and continuing to wave the knife in the air.

Constable Robert Kalai testified as follows. On the 18th August 1978 at about 9 a.m. he brought some constables to the court house to check for knives. At that time only the Gabones had arrived. They had no knives. Then the Gunugaus arrived and a fight started between the Gunugaus and the Gabones. He saw the accused run to the parking area and get a knife from a car which had been parked there. He chased the accused but when he was about 10 yards from the deceased the accused cut the deceased on the left side of the head. Deceased fell down and accused cut him once again while he was on the ground. He then went away singing joyfully and waving his knife in the air. He entered a P.M.V. and was driven away. The witness later saw the body of the deceased and noticed two cuts where the accused had struck him.

Vali Kevena is a Gabone and a cousin of the deceased. On the 18th August at about 9 a.m. he had come to the court house with other Gabones for the hearing of the case. Then the Gunugaus arrived and they started assaulting the Gabones. The Gunugaus got knives and chased the Gabones away. The Gabones were frightened. The deceased was frightened and as he ran he became breathless and collapsed and policemen carried him to a house. Then a magistrate by the name of Kila Loge locked him in the court house for his own safety. Through the louvred windows which were open he saw Goli Golu chase the deceased as he emerged from the house and cut him with a knife. Deceased fell down and accused struck him once again while he was on the ground.

At about 9.30 a.m. on the 18th August Inspector Marioso who was stationed at Koki received a telephone call from the A.D.C. at Kwikila as a result of which he left for Kwikila arriving there at about 10.45 a.m. He was told about the fighting at Kwikila resulting in the death of a man. Accompanied by the Commander of the Mobile Force and the A.D.C., Kwikila, he went to the accused’s house at Gunugau Village. He found the accused seated on the steps of the verandah of his house and noticed a bush knife stuck in a timber post supporting the verandah wall. He took possession of the knife which was blood-stained and brought the accused and the knife to Port Moresby.

At the accused’s request Inspector Marioso stopped at a camp near Gaire. The accused called one of his work mates and said to him in Motu: “Tell the boss to bring my things to my family at the village. I am in trouble. I have just killed a man and I am going to jail.” On arriving at Port Moresby Inspector Marioso handed over the accused and the knife to Constable Bill Kaupa of the Homicide Squad at Boroko Police Station.

There on the same day Constable Kaupa conducted a record of interview with the accused. Briefly this is what the accused said. The Gunugaus arrived at the court house at Kwikila at about 9.30 a.m. The Gabones were already there. Then a fight started between the Gunugaus and the Gabones. The Gabones had spears and knives. They wanted to attack the Gunugaus. He got his own knife and the Gunugaus chased the Gabones up to a distance of about 150 metres. He ran after the deceased and cut him twice on the head. The trouble arose over land. On Saturday the 12th August 1978 the Gabone people raided Gunugau Village. They cut and burnt their coconuts and wanted to kill two of their “daddys”. There was a case in the Kwikila Local Court about this matter but the magistrate did not settle the problem and the Gunugaus were not happy at the magistrate’s decision. That was why they were so worried and he killed the deceased. When he came to Kwikila that day he brought his bush knife with him to cut betelnuts and other things. He ran after deceased and cut him. The deceased also got a knife to cut him but he (the accused) was too quick for the deceased and cut him first. He cut him twice on the head. He ran and cut the deceased on the head. Deceased fell down and he cut him a second time on the head. He was asked if he had any personal problems with the deceased before this incident. The accused replied: “No, as I’ve said before they used to cut and burn down our coconut trees and I was cross about the land, so we were worried about that.” When asked what his intention was when he ran after the deceased the accused said he wanted to kill him. The accused was then asked: “When you ran after this man was your intention to cause him some injury or kill him?” Accused replied: “It was time for fight so I killed him, but if I did not (kill him) he would (have) killed me.”

On the 23rd August 1978 Dr. Manase Saott did a post mortem examination on the body of the deceased. He found the deceased to have been about 150 cm. tall, small and thin and aged about 40 years. He had two cut wounds both on the left side of the head and neck. The uppermost wound was 28 cm. long and extended from the midline of the back of the head to the tip of the mandible (jaw-bone). The mastoid process was completely amputated and the mastoid sinus shattered. The mandible symphisis (part of the jaw-bone above the angle) was completely cut. The teeth on the left side of the jaw from the canine to the last molar had been knocked out. The tongue had been severed and the windpipe cut at the epiglotid level. All the muscles and blood vessels on the left side of the neck were cut. The lower wound measured 23 cm. and extended from the thyroid cartilage on the left side to a few centimetres beyond the midline at the back of the head. This wound went through the muscles and blood vessels of the neck, the second cervical vertebra and severed the spinal cord. The cause of death was cardio-pulmonary paralysis following the severance of the spinal cord. Death would have been almost instant.

The accused has given evidence in his own behalf and called Raga Raga as a witness. His own evidence is briefly as follows. On the 18th August 1978 he had come to Kwikila for a court case. He came with his father, his elder brother and father’s brother in a small car which they parked in front of the court house. The Gabones were already there. He did not know how the fight started. He was trying to ascertain what was going on when five or more Gabones attacked him. The deceased was one of them. He had not known him before. He knocked down one of the Gabones who was probably the deceased.

The Gabones called out in their own language: “Bring knives and spears.” He got his own knife from his car and ran to the back of the court house where the fight was in progress. He ran between the court house and the building adjacent to the court house and between the two small buildings behind the court house. He saw Raga Raga about 16 yards behind the small building nearest to Laruni Parade. Raga Raga was nursing an injury to his leg which he (the accused) assumed had been caused by a bottle being thrown at him. After that he saw the deceased yelling and boasting in his own language and jumping about holding a knife above his head. He said: “You Goli Golu. I will have sex with your wife. I have married your wife. She is staying in my house. Now I will kill you.” The deceased was using the customary way of challenging an opponent to fight. Custom also compelled the person challenged to accept the challenge and fight until one of them got killed. This customary challenge is known in their language as “vevato”.

The accused lost his temper. He was prepared to die. He ran towards the deceased who advanced towards him at the same time until they stood face to face. The deceased aimed a blow at him with his knife which the accused dodged by stepping to one side. The accused then swung his knife at the deceased not aiming anywhere in particular and the knife struck the deceased on the head. The accused was out of his mind and cannot remember if he struck another blow.

Raga Raga’s evidence is briefly as follows. He is a Gunugau, 31 years of age and unemployed. On the 18th August 1978 he went to attend the court case at Kwikila. There was a fight between the Gunugaus and the Gabones and in the course of the fighting he heard one of the Gabones shout in his own language: “Boys get the knives and sticks.” The Gabones got knives, spears and sticks and came running to the place where the fighting was going on. He had a travelling bag in which there was a big knife which he uses for breaking coconuts and cutting and peeling sugar cane. He got hold of this knife and ran to the place where the fighting was going on. The Gunugaus started chasing the Gabones. He ran for some distance presumably in chase of the Gabones. He then stopped and turned round. He saw the deceased holding an empty bottle which he threw at him. He ducked and the bottle struck him in the knee and broke and some fragments struck his forehead causing it to bleed profusely. Some of the blood got into his eyes. He threw away his knife which fell three to four feet from him. He was crying and calling out for help and a man by the name of Goli Yovai came to his assistance. He was badly injured and in great pain, he had lost his knife. He begged Goli Yovai not to leave him. Goli Yovai stayed with him for one to four minutes at the end of which he tried his leg to see if it was all right. It felt better. He stood up and started looking for his knife. He saw Goli Golu and a person lying in front of him. He said to himself: “That is Goli Golu. I must go and see him to see what has happened.” When he got to Goli Golu he saw his knife lying beside the dead man who was the deceased Kalai Vaula. He said to himself: “Christ, this is my knife.” He took possession of the knife. After the fight was over he walked to the front of the court house where he got into a motor vehicle and was driven home.

Almost all prosecution witnesses have been policemen, and, at the end of the day the witnesses upon whose evidence I shall be relying will be policemen. None of them are even remotely from the area where the Gunugaus and the Gabones come. They have no axe to grind and having regard to the nature of the evidence they have given and their demeanour I accept all of them, with the exception of Constable Robert Kalai, as being both truthful and reliable.

I do not consider Robert Kalai to be an untruthful witness. He joined the police force twenty years ago at a time when policemen did not speak English and could neither read nor write, and, like them Robert Kalai is either illiterate or semi-illiterate. He is obviously of limited intelligence. He was not a satisfactory witness. There are discrepancies between his evidence and his police statement. He seldom gave his answers in a straightforward manner. Sometimes he prevaricated. He claims to have chased the accused and been only about ten yards away from him when he killed the deceased. But for reasons I have stated I prefer not to rely upon his evidence.

Nor do I accept the evidence of the witness Vali Kevena. He claims to have seen the accused killing the deceased. He said in his evidence before me that he had seen this through the windows of the court house after a magistrate had locked him inside for his own safety. He gave a different account at the committal proceedings. He said that while he was outside he saw the accused kill the deceased and accused was then coming to attack him when the magistrate locked him in the court house. This is a glaring inconsistency. One would expect him to remember exactly where he was when witnessing such a dramatic incident as the killing of a man. There are other discrepancies in his evidence which cause me to hesitate in accepting him as a truthful witness and I therefore reject his evidence.

Constable Ene Napao was an excellent witness. He is obviously an intelligent man and an efficient policeman. He gave his evidence in a confident and self-assured manner. He was cross-examined at great length by defence counsel but never shaken.

In his evidence before me Constable Napao had said that the call for knives came from the Gunugaus. He admitted that in his police statement he had said that it came from the Gabones. He said that he had made a mistake in saying in his police statement that it was the Gabones who called for knives. In view of Constable Napao’s admission as to what he had said in his police statement the inconsistency was apparent on the record. It was the only inconsistency which cross-examination revealed in the statement. It was not therefore necessary to put in evidence the police statement, which is what defence counsel did and in doing so did more harm than good to his client’s case as will appear hereafter.

Cross-examination also revealed that whereas in this court Napao had said that he had taken his eyes off the accused and Raga Raga momentarily just before the deceased was killed he had not said this in his evidence at the committal proceedings. Defence counsel thought this was an inconsistency which warranted the putting in evidence Napao’s evidence at the committal proceedings. I myself saw no inconsistency here. The witness could have been elaborating at the trial what he had said to the magistrate at the committal proceedings. The only effect of putting in evidence Napao’s deposition at the committal proceedings was to show that at the committal proceedings Napao had said without being prompted and before being cross-examined that the call for knives had come from the Gunugaus. Even without Napao’s deposition I would have been prepared to accept that Napao had made a mistake in saying in his police statement that the call for knives had come from the Gabones. All the other policemen had said that the Gunugaus had called for knives. The deposition served to confirm that Napao had made a genuine mistake.

Even before the knives had been called for the Gunugaus who out-numbered both the Gabones and the police had chased the Gabones for a distance of about 150 yards from the scene of the fighting. The single Gabone who had been held and was being assaulted by the Gunugaus had been rescued by the police and had run away. The only Gabone left was the unfortunate deceased, who, after being knocked unconscious, had been deposited in Tau Bae’s house. He must have recovered consciousness and must have been trying to join the Gabones when the accused and Raga Raga having armed themselves with knives from a small car in the parking area returned to the fighting area looking for victims and upon encountering the deceased unarmed and defenceless, killed him. In his record of interview the accused said that he ran after the deceased and cut him. It is true he also said that deceased was armed with a knife, but I do not believe he was.

He makes no mention of “vevato” which has loomed so large in his defence. His excuse that he did not do so because he was never questioned about “vevato” is feeble. He was told: “If its possible you can tell me the story of what had happened at Kwikila on Friday 18th August 1978 and I will type it down on the paper.” Accused made no mention of “vevato”. He gave other reasons for killing the deceased. At his trial accused’s defence was based on “vevato”. He said he killed the deceased because of “vevato”. He was interviewed on the day of the killing a few hours after the killing. If “vevato” was the reason for the killing, how could he have failed to mention it to the policeman who was interviewing him. I am satisfied that the accused made no mention of “vevato” because it never happened. It is an after-thought.

At the time when deceased was slain no other Gabones were present. They had been chased away by the Gunugaus. The accused is a tall, young and strong man. He was armed with a big, heavy bush knife. The deceased was a small, thin and elderly man and had apparently just recovered from being unconscious. In these circumstances it is extremely unlikely that the deceased would have challenged the accused even if he had been armed with a knife. But as I have said earlier I do not believe deceased had a knife. Moreover there would be no reason for the deceased to challenge the accused. On accused’s own admission he had not known the deceased before that day.

A large part of Raga Raga’s evidence is devoted to suggesting how the deceased may have come into possession of his (Raga Raga’s) knife. I find Raga Raga’s evidence not only improbable but highly fanciful. Like Goli Golu, Raga Raga is a tall and strong young man. He was armed with a knife. According to Raga Raga deceased did not have a knife. Would a comparatively elderly weakling have dared to hurl a bottle at Raga Raga? I would have thought that such an action would have been an invitation to certain death. And how convenient that having lost his knife he was incapacitated just long enough to enable the deceased to get possession of his knife. And how convenient that in falling down he had turned away from the deceased so that he had not observed the deceased take possession of the knife. Having been injured so seriously that he is incapable of retaining possession of the knife he then recovers dramatically, walks up to Goli, finds his knife at the side of the dead man and says to himself: “Christ, this is my knife”, takes possession of the knife, walks cooly to the car park and is driven away.

This story is designed to explain the possession of a knife by the deceased at the time when Goli Golu attacked him and the absence of the knife in the vicinity of deceased’s body later when the policemen came there. It is a story which strains belief.

I do not believe that Raga Raga heard the highly insulting words allegedly addressed to Goli Golu. Having regard to the evidence of Goli Golu the suggestion clearly is that the deceased uttered these words. I am satisfied that Raga Raga did not hear these words for the simple reason that deceased did not say them.

I am satisfied from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that Raga Raga was present aiding and abetting Goli Golu when the latter killed the deceased. Having run up with Goli Golu to the place where the deceased was he stood near the legs of the deceased with a knife in his hand while Goli Golu hacked the deceased to death.

Keto Kila is a prosecution witness. He had given evidence at the committal proceedings stating how the accused had run after Kalai Kila and cut him with a knife. At the trial the prosecution called him solely for the purpose of establishing that he had identified deceased’s body to the doctor who had done the post mortem examination. Defence counsel in cross-examining him elicited from him that he had seen the accused run after deceased and strike him with a knife. After obtaining this damaging evidence against his client the rest of the cross-examination consisted in trying to discredit him. Counsel for the defence then put in evidence his depositions at the committal proceedings. This witness may well have seen the accused cutting the deceased but his evidence at the committal proceedings is somewhat at odds with the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses. This may be the reason why the prosecution did not seek to elicit from him the whole of his evidence. For these reasons I place no reliance on his evidence.

Having regard to the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that the Gunugaus in spite of the precautions taken by the police had succeeded in smuggling knives within the precincts of the court house; that they attacked the Gabones who had been sitting quietly behind the court house and were not armed and that at a predetermined signal they produced knives with which to attack the Gabones. The Gabones had fled before the knives had been produced except the unfortunate deceased who had earlier been knocked unconscious and had been placed in a house for his own safety. When he emerged from the house, presumably after recovering consciousness, and sought to join his co-villagers he fell an easy victim to the accused who was armed with a knife.

That accused killed the deceased is not disputed. The accused’s defence is that he killed the deceased in self-defence, or, alternatively, after he had been provoked. I am satisfied for reasons I have stated above that the deceased had not provoked the accused by word or deed and had not attacked the accused before the accused killed him.

Earlier in my judgment I have referred to the damaging evidence which defence counsel obtained against his client by putting in evidence quite gratuitously Constable Napao’s police statement. This evidence is as follows. In the police statement after stating that he saw the accused and other Gunugaus arm themselves with knives from a small truck he continued: “As the Gunugau villagers ran down with their bush (knives) yelling and shouting I heard one Gunugau man shout in English: ‘If any policeman tried (tries) to stop us we will cut the policeman with bush knife.’ As the policemen holding the batton (were holding only batons) to stop them as well as to protect themselves, it was not enough as there were too many Gunugau villagers with bush knives (and they) out-numbered the Police.” This goes to show how determined the Gunugaus were to attack the Gabones who had already fled from the scene. The deceased was the sole victim of this determined attack and he succumbed because he had been unable to escape earlier, he was amongst hostile Gunugaus armed with knives and there were no Gabones around to defend him.

The accused admits killing the deceased. He was not acting in self defence nor had he been provoked. There was neither justification nor excuse for the killing. That he intended to kill is clear from the weapon used and the injuries inflicted on the deceased. The knife with which he killed the deceased is long, heavy and razor sharp. The deceased was almost decapitated.

For these reasons I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused and convict him of the offence of wilful murder.

Solicitor for the State: K.B. Egan, Public Prosecutor

Counsel: J.W. McMaster

Solicitor for the Accused: Ikenna Nwokolo & Co.

Counsel: E.I.M. Nwokolo