In a ruling that underscores the legal consequences of violent altercations, a Life Camp Chief Magistrates’ Court in Abuja has sentenced 22-year-old Hamed Musa to two years in prison for causing grievous harm. The case offers a tangible example of how Nigeria’s penal code addresses acts of serious physical violence.
Imprisonment Without Option of Fine: A Firm Stance on Violence
By Ugochi Ugo-joy Ndubuisi
Abuja, Dec.19, 2025 (NAN)
The court, presided over by Magistrate Musa Jobbo, delivered its verdict on Friday, imposing a custodial sentence of two years on the convict, Hamed Musa of Galadima, Gwarinpa. Significantly, the sentence was handed down without an option of fine, a judicial decision that highlights the seriousness with which the court viewed the offense. In such cases, the denial of a fine option typically indicates that the court considers the crime severe enough to warrant a mandatory period of incarceration as both punishment and deterrence.
Magistrate Jobbo also issued a direct warning to Musa to desist from criminal activity upon his release, a standard judicial admonition that links the punitive aspect of sentencing to the goal of rehabilitation and future public safety.
The Anatomy of the Crime: From Dispute to Injury
The prosecution, led by Mrs. Charity Nwachukwu, presented a clear chronology of events. The incident originated from a misunderstanding on December 3rd between Musa and the complainant, Mr. Suleman Tuker, who resides at the same address. This disagreement escalated into a physical fight, during which Musa used a sharp knife to inflict grievous injuries on Tuker.
The prosecutor detailed that the complainant’s calls for help alerted bystanders, who intervened and apprehended Musa at the scene. Mr. Tuker was then rushed to the hospital for urgent medical treatment. The prosecution noted that the cost of this treatment amounted to approximately ₦120,000—a substantial sum that quantifies one layer of the victim’s loss, beyond the physical and psychological trauma.
During the police investigation, Musa provided a confessional statement, which likely streamlined the judicial process. His subsequent guilty plea in court further contributed to the relatively swift conclusion of the case.
Legal Context: Understanding Section 383 of the Penal Code
The charge against Musa was framed under Section 383 of the Penal Code, which is applicable in most northern states and the Federal Capital Territory. This section specifically deals with the offense of “voluntarily causing grievous hurt.” Legally, “grievous hurt” is not merely a serious injury; it is specifically defined to include certain types of harm, such as emasculation, permanent privation of sight or hearing, impairment of limbs, or injuries that endanger life or cause severe physical pain or incapacity for 20 days or more.
The court’s sentence of two years’ imprisonment falls within the discretionary powers granted to the magistrate for this offense. The decision to forgo a fine option reflects a judicial assessment that a non-custodial penalty would be insufficient to meet the demands of justice in this instance, given the use of a weapon and the resultant severe injuries.
Broader Implications: Sentencing, Deterrence, and Restorative Justice
This case serves as a microcosm of the challenges and processes within the Nigerian criminal justice system. It touches on several key themes:
- Guilty Pleas and Judicial Efficiency: Musa’s guilty plea likely avoided a protracted trial, demonstrating how such pleas can conserve court resources and time.
- Cost of Violence: The cited medical bill of ₦120,000 brings into sharp focus the economic burden violent crime places on victims, separate from the emotional and physical toll.
- The Role of the Community: The intervention of bystanders who apprehended the convict was crucial. It highlights the importance of community vigilance in aiding law enforcement and ensuring perpetrators are brought to justice.
While the sentence delivers a measure of punitive justice, it also raises questions about restorative aspects, such as compensation for the victim’s medical costs, which were not mentioned as part of the ruling. Cases like these continue to fuel discussions on balancing punishment, deterrence, and victim restitution in the legal framework.
The offence contravenes the provision of section 383 of the Penal Code. (NAN)(www.nannews.ng)
UGO/UNS
========
Edited by Sandra Umeh
