rage or fury, the accused person suddenly and temporarily loses his passion and self control; a state of mind which results in the commission of the offence.” In a plethora of decided cases, it has been severally held that an accused or defendant who want to avail himself of the defence of provocation, must satisfy certain conditions precedent. In the case of Azuogu V. State (2019) 3 WRN 98 at 123-124 lines 45-15, the Supreme Court per Nweze JSC stated the law as follows:“The three conjunctive elements which a defendant who wants to avail himself of this special defence must prove, are that: (a) There was the deceased person act of provocation’s which caused his loss of self control; (b) He killed the deceased in the heat of passion; and (c) At the time of killing, the heat of passion had not waned.” - Ndubuisi V. State (2019) 3 WRN 1 Illuebe V. State (2000) 7 NWLR pt 665 P 404 Amala V. State (2004) 31 WRN 1 Yusuf V. State (1988) 4 NWLR pt 86 p 96 Nwede V. State (1985) 3 NWLR pt 13 p 444 From the foregoing, cases, for a defendant to avail himself of the defence of provocation, the aforementioned Trinitarian elements must co-exist requiring the defendant to prove that it was due to the Page 28 of 34