commits the offence of treason and, subject to subsection (2) of this section, is liable on conviction to be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life." II Subsection (2) reads - "where a person commits an offence under paragraph (6) of subsection (1) of this section, he or she shall, on conviction, be sdntenced to death." ' (Emphasis supplied). ltllllillll II 11111111'' ' 111111111111 1111 . 1 And the same applies in the sentenc.i. ng provisions' f1o11r1'murder un'd' erl ' Section 188 of ' lillh ·•!lllll''"'ullllllllt'·... ·IIIII!• the Code. 11 llh "A person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death." •illi,'llnllul!J' '•It Jtl! ;Ill' ' llhh I, therefore, reject the argumenfs of Counsel for ,the Respondent on the import of the 'i . I ' word "liable" under Section 122 of the Criminal Code. The complaint here is not that the 'i ' *· t I ' f " trial judge failed}l9 11 cir his d,i 1sqetion or exceeded his jurisdiction in so doing, but that II • the failure impropij;, I I 'tl ' •lllllJijj I ' 'I re with the trial judge's exercise of discretion was Ill ' • li 11 1 ·1111 11,., 111111!·, l h t pi Atlhe lower cour; ,,1to. I interf ' n111l . II' • rn both the lower )court and this Court, the exhortation of the Honourable Justice Chomba II 1111 I ,1 ' I' I I II . JCA, as he then v!Jas, m the case of NYABALLY V THE STATE [1997- 2001] GLR p. 64, at ' II ,I ' . • I II I'll' 68, that "senfencing magistrates [ought] to realize that when viciously long sentences are impo ed on first offenders, the effect can be counter-productive" has been urged on this I Court as a general sentencing guidel_iAe applibable to the present case. The lower court rightly distinguished the NYABALLY case from the present case given the nature of the SC NO. 212012- NFAMARA SAIDYKHAN VS THE MATE- 7TH MAY 2015 Page..j 6 lllit