Home:: Journals

THE CORONER'S PLACE (TCP)...

Nationwide State Research by Access to Justice of Coroner Laws Report that Coroner Laws are Existing, but are Practically Dead Letter Laws

Access to Justice commissioned a study surveying a number of state jurisdictions across Nigeria to find whether Coroner Legislations are in force, and indexing the rate of compliance with them among the law enforcement community, local governments and communities and the public.

Researchers covered about 20 states and the federal capital territory. Findings from the research were remarkably uniform in two key aspects. One, all the states researched retained coroner laws, which gives strong indication that all the states in Nigeria have extant legislations on coroners. Two, the coroner system has fallen, uniformly, into disuse. Here are summaries of reports by the researchers.

In South-West Nigeria, Coroners Are Established by Law, But State Disuse and Widespread Ignorance Stifle its Potential Relevance

L aws establishing coroners inquest in Lagos, Ogun and Oyo States are almost entirely the
same, except for a few differences. In Lagos State, it is the Coroners Law Cap 31, Laws of Lagos State 1994. In Ogun State, the law is titled Coroners Law, Cap 27, The Laws of Ogun State 1978. The Oyo State legislation is also titled Coroners Law, Cap 28, The Laws of Oyo State of Nigeria 1978. Southwestern coroner laws are dated, and trace their origin to the Laws of the Western Region of Nigeria 1959 Cap. 27. Coroner Laws of Ogun and Oyo States, unlike that of Lagos, expressly confers powers on individuals to submit information about investigable deaths to coroners, as well as to the local government.

Besides this, Coroner Laws of the three States create the same type of obligations, confer the same panoply of powers on coroners and prescribe the same procedures. An inquest would be held whenever a coroner is informed that the body of a deceased person is lying within his or her jurisdiction and there are reasonable grounds to suspect that such person died either a violent or unnatural death, or died a sudden death of which the cause is not known, or that such person died whilst confined in a lunatic asylum, or in any place or circumstances which, in the opinion of the coroner, makes the holding of an inquest necessary or desirable. The coroner may however dispense with an inquest where death is attributed to natural causes and the body shows no appearance of being attributable to or accelerated by violence or culpable conduct, or suspend the inquest where informed that criminal proceedings have been or are about to be commenced in relation to the death.

The combined effect of sections 5, 6, 9 and 32(1) of the Coroner Laws in the three States would forbid the disposal of the body of a person who died under circumstances that make the holding of an inquest necessary or desirable. All the laws prescribe penal sanctions for failure to comply with several obligations under the law and demonstrate the legislature's policy that under no circumstances would the occurrence of an investigable death escape inquisition. The coroner may even order the exhumation of a body that was buried before an inquest could be held or the body viewed by the coroner. Notwithstanding this, there are a number of obsolete provisions that should be repealed or amended in the Coroners' Laws of the three States.

The Coroner is also empowered to issue a summons or warrant to secure the attendance of such person before a magistrate having jurisdiction, and may bind over witnesses who have been examined before him on a recognisance to appear and give evidence before the magistrate.

At the end of the inquest, the Coroner records his findings in a verdict that discloses the identity of the deceased, and how, when and where the deceased came by his or her death.

All three States researched have observed their Coroner Laws in the breach. The only practice that resemble, from afar, the steps required to be taken under the coroner law consist of a procedure in which Magistrates append their signatures to warrants prepared by police officers ordering post mortem examinations or authorizing the burial of a deceased person whose death ought to have been made the subject of a coronial investigation. Unfortunately, hardly are such deaths questioned by the Magistrate even when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the death occurred under some violent or other suspect circumstances.

In Ogun State, public awareness of the institution of the coroner is completely absent, and discussions about coroners often sound foreign or distant. Even Ogun State Chief Judge showed surprise when Access to Justice field researcher Toyin Badejogbin told him that there was a coroner law in the state and that he was researching ways that coroner inquests could assist the investigation of sudden or unnatural deaths.

In Lagos State, findings showed that only one coroner's court served the entire state even though the Coroner law designates all Magistrates as coroners, and, before Access to Justice took the landmark step of initiating inquest proceedings in 2002 (see full story at page 8), there had been 2 or 3 botched attempts at holding an inquest before the designated coroner's court. In at least one of these attempts, the inquest proceeding was frustrated because police authorities in the state failed to honour the Coroner's summons. The default practice amongst Lagos State Magistrates is that of signing authorization warrants for post-mortem examinations and for burial but without holding inquests as required by law even where the circumstances of the death pointed to the necessity or desirability of holding an inquest.