By Ahmod B. Ariyibi, Esq.

Introduction

Ignorantia juris non excusat is a latin maxim which simply means: Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. This is an age long legal principle that everyone needs to know or ought to know that law excuses no one and (or) ignorance of the law accommodates no excuse.

The above principle is applicable throughout the world including Nigeria, and no one can feign ignorance of the law on his action or inaction that is contrary to the law. The common saying is that where there is no law there is no sin (no transgression) which simply means that one cannot literally break a law unless they are rightly subject to it.

The article briefly gave the essential legal principles of ‘Ignorance of Law’ and ‘Ignorance of Fact’. Understanding these concepts is crucial in navigating the complexities of the law.

The law in Nigeria, under section 390 of the Criminal Code Act(i) for instance, is that any person who steals anything capable of being stolen, is guilty of a felony and is liable, if no other punishment is provided, to imprisonment for three (3) years. Simply put, stealing is an offence in Nigeria and any person that steal is liable to 3 years minimum and that person cannot cry foul that he is/was not aware that stealing is an offence.

For example, Mrs A entered the house of her neighbour (Mrs B) immediately she noticed that Mrs B is not at home, and took some money she kept in the safe of her bedroom with the motive that she wanted to use the money in buying food for her children, but without Mrs B’s permission. Unknown to Mrs A that Mrs. C saw her, she (Mrs C) waited to see whether Mrs. B was aware or not, until later in the night that Mrs B was shouting that someone stole her money and Mrs C then informed Mrs B that it was Mrs A who took the money. When Mrs B confronted Mrs A, she did not denied but said that she only did that to buy food for her children and that she is not aware that what she had done in that situation is an offence. As explained earlier, that defence she raised cannot avail her and she would be punished accordingly if proven against her.

In the case of NKECHI & ANOR v. ANYALEWECHI(ii), Per Agube, JCA explained the age long principle at Pp 35-35 Paras A-C thus:

“In the case of Omowaiye & Anor. v. A. G. Ekiti State (2010) LPELR – 4779 (CA), the Court took the position that: “…ignorance of the law as opposed to ignorance of the facts has never afforded anybody an excuse; for everybody is supposed to know the law; the maxim is Ignorantia juris quod quisque tenetur scire, meninem excusat [lgnorance of the law which everybody is supposed to know does not excuse]…”

From the above decision, we can safely say that the law does not excuse anyone once it is enacted and put in place. The sweet part, however, is that there is an opposite of the latin maxim thus: Ignorantia Facti Excusat which simply means that ignorance of fact is an excuse.

This principle provides a defence for individuals who may have caused harm due to a lack of knowledge or information or because he acted mistakenly, following an honest but wrong impression. Section 25 of the Criminal Code Act(iii) provides that a person who does or omits to do an act under an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief in the existence of any state of things, is not criminally responsible for the act or omission to any greater extent than if the real state of things had been such as he believed to exist.

For example, Lagos State Government set down penalty of N50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) for any person that refuses to use the pedestrian bridge, but decided to cross the road.(iv) If a person contravened that law and is arrested, he cannot feign ignorance of that law. However, if a person was driving a car and accidentally hit a pedestrian who suddenly ran onto the road (as the pedestrian failed to use the bridge), the driver may be able to use “Ignorantia Facti Excusat” as a defence. Once he can prove that he did not see the pedestrian and could not have avoided the accident, then he may be excused.

Conclusion

In order for the principle of ignorance of fact to avail someone, the person must prove same clearly, unambiguously and convincingly; failure of which it will not avail the person. In the case of ERO & ANOR v. TINUBU(v), Per Mshelia, JCA stated at Pp 31-32 Paras D-A that:

“…DW4 testified that at the time he inspected the land with Dr Enitan the 1st Defendant, he met fence and gate on the land and still bought the same land. Having noticed the presence of fence and gate, it ought to put the Appellants on guard as to whether what they were buying actually belongs to someone other than the seller. Appellants believed the 1st Defendant that it was a common fence erected by the Ogundimu family. That excuse would not avail the Appellants. In Chukwuogor v. A. G. Rivers State cited (supra) by Respondent’s counsel the Court of Appeal held thus: “A purchaser must be on his guard; for he has no right to remain in ignorance of the fact that what he is buying belongs to someone other than the seller, the maxim is qui ignorance non debit quo jus alienum emit.”

The principle of ignorance of the law on the other hand, requires no proof that one is aware of it or otherwise. Once the state enacts a law as justified by sections 12 and 36 (12) of the Constitution(vi), no one is excused from the law, whether he can read or not is not the concern of the law.

It is on this note we shall continuously enlighten ourselves about the law, its applicability and its pros and cons.

Ahmod B. Ariyibi, Esq. is an Associate at Synergy Attornies. His areas of interest include: Dispute Resolution through Advocacy, Corporate and Commercial Law Practices, Labour/Employment Law, Aviation and Maritime Law, Real Estate Investment, Intellectual Property, Digital Development, and Project and Human Resources Management.

Endnotes

1. Section 390 of the Criminal Code Act, Cap C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010

2. (2021) LPELR-55611(CA)

3. Supra

4. https://punchng.com/lagos-dislodges-miscreants-occupying-pedestrian-bridges/ accessed 20th February 2024

5. (2012) LPELR-7869(CA)

6. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended)