LAST SEEN

Breaking the social media aspect of the law

It’s another day to over analyze a social media scenario, and from the above pic we are dealing with a case of a lady who died after eating a food at her boyfriend’s house.

Before we go into the legal aspect, it is worth noting the advancements in forensic science and medical knowledge. Historically, allergic reactions or sudden medical events could easily be mistaken for poisoning, leading to wrongful accusations or executions. Modern pathology and toxicology help distinguish natural causes, allergies, or underlying conditions from foul play.

Now, back to the scenario, let’s look at it through the lens of a Nigerian and through the lens of the law. As a Nigerian, If you ever find yourself in this scenario, my best advice for you would be to DISAPPEAR, not run, not hide but Disappear. Why? Because Public opinion frequently assumes guilt often attributing motives such as ritual purposes or organ harvesting which makes it extremely difficult to restore one’s reputation even if innocent. Additionally, practical experiences with law enforcement, including prolonged detention during investigations and issues with bail practices (despite statutory provisions for free police bail), underscore the risks involved. Legal education often emphasizes that theoretical principles may diverge markedly from on-the-ground realities.

The Lens of the law

Legally, if you find yourself in a situation like this what should you do?

If confronted with a similar situation where a partner or companion dies unexpectedly in one’s presence or shortly after being together, the immediate priority should be to seek professional legal advice without delay. Full and truthful disclosure to one’s lawyer is essential.

Practically, the following steps are advisable:

- Promptly transport the individual to a hospital (if not already deceased on arrival) or ensure medical professionals attend the scene.

- Only a qualified medical practitioner can officially certify death.

- Hospital records may document pre-existing medical conditions, allergies, symptoms, or autopsy findings that could establish a natural or accidental cause of death, potentially exonerating the individual.

Under Nigerian law, Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) guarantees the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Judicial authorities such as Miller v. State (2005) hold that mere suspicion or presence at the scene cannot substitute for proof, while **Kolawole v. State (2021)** clarifies that flight alone does not establish guilt.

Nevertheless, in homicide cases (particularly murder or culpable homicide), the doctrine of last seen often applies and can significantly influence proceedings.

THE DOCTRINE OF LAST SEEN

The doctrine of last seen (often referred to as the “last seen together” doctrine) is a well-established principle in Nigerian criminal law, particularly in homicide cases. It creates a rebuttable presumption that the person last seen with the deceased bears responsibility for their death, especially where the circumstances make other explanations implausible. This presumption shifts an evidential burden onto the accused to provide a reasonable explanation for the deceased’s fate.

Cases such as Tajudeen Iliyasu v. The State have explained that the doctrine presumes the last person seen with the deceased is responsible if the death is established. In Igabele v. State (2006), the Supreme Court affirmed that the person last seen with the deceased bears the burden to offer at least a minimal explanation of events leading to the death. More recent authorities, including Kwenev v. State (2022) and others, reinforce this position.

The doctrine operates as a form of circumstantial evidence and does not reverse the overall burden of proof, which remains on the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. However, failure to provide a satisfactory account can lead to an inference of guilt, particularly when combined with other evidence.

In practice, the doctrine frequently leads to the boyfriend (or last person seen with the victim) becoming the primary suspect. Investigations by the Nigeria Police Force may be protracted (sometimes lasting years) during which the accused could remain in custody. In some instances, thorough forensic or independent investigation may be limited, and decisions can be influenced by circumstantial evidence and public pressure.

While constitutional safeguards and judicial precedents protect against conviction based solely on suspicion, the interplay of the last seen doctrine with practical realities of policing and societal assumptions means that avoiding prolonged detention or reputational damage can be extraordinarily difficult, even for the innocent.