Criminal responsibility for the commission of a crime is premised on the satisfactory proof of the two pillars of actus reus and mens rea. That is the doing of the act that constitutes the offence and the requisite mental capacity.

A basic principle in criminal law is often expressed in the latin maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means an act does not make a man guilty of a crime, unless his mind be also guilty.

In Liman v. The State (2016) LPELR-40260(CA), it was held that before an accused person is asked to undergo any sort of sentence, there must be a finding by the trial court on the concurrence of the two main elements of a crime, the actus reus and the mens rea. More importantly, the act of parading criminal suspects before investigation and trial offends the spirit of the provisions of section 36 of the 1999 constitution as amended. Again, it would amount to media trial of the suspects, which appears as conviction of the suspects to a vast majority of the people who are not knowledgeable in criminal law jurisprudence.

It is even more offensive when it involves minors who the law regards as doli incapax .In Njoku v. State (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt 1339) 548, it was held that for the prosecution to establish a crime against an accused person, it must go beyond establishing the commission of the unlawful Criminal act by the accused person and establish that the accused had the correct legal criminal mind of committing the act.The two must co-exist, whether explicitly or by necessary implication. In Abeke v. The State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt 1040) 411, the court held that the guilty mind instigates the guilty act or flows into the guilty act.

In Fagan v. MPC (1969) 1 Q. B. 439, the court held that although the actus reus was present, but due to him being unaware of what was happening, he would not in fact be liable as he did not have the guilty mind. Our contention is that there must be a well founded intercourse between the two pillars of actus reus and mens rea before an accused person can be found guilty of any criminal offence, except where it is a strict liability offence. Consequently, it the opinion of this article that once an accused person lacked the mental capacity for the commission of a crime, a verdict of discharged and acquittal must be returned. Dr. S. O. Gavin Daudu, Legal Adviser, NBA Benin