In early 2022, I received a call from my friend -Ken- while I was watching Lionel Messi’s clips on YouTube. He told me that his cousin -Emeka- had been arrested for assaulting a police officer. Emeka claimed the officer damaged his laptop while conducting a random stop and search on the express road, and in the heat of the moment, he lifted an iron bar from the roadside and meticulously laid it to rest on the policeman’s head, rendering him unconscious and in a pool of blood. Ken repeatedly mentioned Emeka acted in self-defense, but did he?

Introduction

In Nigeria, the legal concept of self-defense offers individuals a means to protect themselves from imminent harm. However, the defense has limitations, particularly when it comes to the level of force employed. Nigerian law acknowledges the right to defend oneself, but not all acts of violence, even those claimed to be in self-defense, can be justified. The boundaries of self-defense are clear: force must be reasonable, proportional to the threat, and applied only when necessary. This article provides an analysis of the Nigerian legal framework surrounding self-defense, shedding light on its limitations through relevant case law and legal provisions.

The notion of self-defense as a legal defense is widely accepted in many jurisdictions, including Nigeria. It allows individuals to protect themselves, their property, or others from immediate threats of harm or danger. However, this right is not absolute.

Nigerian law places specific restrictions on the use of force in self-defense, ensuring that it is exercised within reasonable limits. The defense can only succeed when the response is proportionate to the perceived danger and when the use of force is necessary to avert the threat. Courts in Nigeria have developed a body of case law that illustrates these limitations and the consequences of excessive force.

Legal Framework for Self Defense in Nigeria

The Constitution and the Right to Life 

The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) is the bedrock of the country’s legal system, and it guarantees the right to life under Section 33. This right, however, is not absolute, as the Constitution permits the use of force in certain circumstances, including self-defense. Section 33(2)(a) provides that a person will not be considered to have been deprived of their life if the act resulting in death was done in defense of any person from unlawful violence or to defend property.

While the Constitution recognizes the legitimacy of using force in defense, the overarching requirement remains that the force must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat at hand. Unjustified or excessive violence, even under the guise of self-defense, could lead to criminal liability.

Criminal Code Act (Southern Nigeria)

The Criminal Code Act, applicable in Southern Nigeria, contains provisions that regulate self-defense. Section 286 of the Criminal Code outlines that a person who is unlawfully assaulted is justified in using force that is necessary to make an effective defense, provided that such force is reasonable and proportional to the threat faced. The key point in this section is that while one may use force in defense, the amount of force must not exceed what is necessary for protection. Any force beyond this is deemed excessive and may not be justified.

Penal Code (Northern Nigeria)

The Penal Code, which applies in Northern Nigeria, provides for self-defense in Section 60. Similar to the provisions in the Criminal Code, it allows the use of force when defending oneself, others, or property from an imminent threat of unlawful violence. However, the force must be limited to what is reasonably necessary in the circumstances. The Penal Code underscores that self-defense should not be used as a justification for disproportionate or retaliatory violence.

Limits of Self-Defense: Proportionality and Immediacy

For a claim of self-defense to succeed in Nigerian courts, the force used must be proportional to the danger posed, and the threat must be immediate. Both proportionality and immediacy are fundamental to the lawful exercise of self-defense.

Proportionality

The Nigerian legal system insists that the degree of force used in self-defense must match the threat. If an individual uses excessive force in response to a minor threat, the law will not support their claim of self-defense. For example, responding to a slap with lethal force is typically regarded as disproportionate and cannot be justified under self-defense.

The case of Obaji v. The State (1965) 1 All N.L.R. 269 illustrates the importance of proportionality. In this case, the defendant killed a man who had attacked him with a stick. The court held that while the defendant was entitled to defend himself, the use of deadly force was excessive under the circumstances. As a result, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter, rather than being acquitted on the grounds of self-defense.

Immediacy

The threat must also be immediate for self-defense to be valid. Nigerian law does not permit preemptive or retaliatory strikes. The danger must be clear and present, requiring an immediate response to avert harm. If the threat has passed or is no longer imminent, the use of force will be considered unlawful.

In Yahaya v. The State (1984) 2 N.C.R. 117, the court rejected the defendant’s self-defense claim because the threat was no longer immediate when he acted. The defendant had killed a man after a dispute, but the court ruled that since the danger was not immediate, self-defense was not a valid justification.

Case Studies: When Self-Defense Fails as a Justification

The following cases demonstrate instances where self-defense was unsuccessful due to either excessive force or lack of immediacy in the response.

1. Akpan V. The State (1994) 9 N.W.L.R. 617

In this case, the defendant used a machete to kill a man who had threatened him with a bottle. The court found that although the victim had initiated the threat, the defendant’s use of a deadly weapon in response was disproportionate to the level of danger. The defense of self-defense was therefore rejected, and the defendant was convicted of murder.

2. Nwede V. The State (2017) LPELR-41972 (SC)

In Nwede v. The State, the defendant claimed self-defense after fatally stabbing a man during an altercation. The court ruled that the use of a knife was excessive, given that the altercation did not present an immediate life-threatening situation. As a result, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter.

3. Adekunle V. The State (2006) LPELR-61 (SC)

This case dealt with an individual who responded to a slap by stabbing the assailant, resulting in death. The court emphasized that the slap, while an assault, did not justify the use of lethal force. The defendant’s claim of self-defense was dismissed on the grounds of disproportionality, leading to a conviction for murder.

Special Considerations: Defense of Property and Battered Woman Syndrome

Defense of Property

Under Nigerian law, individuals may use force to defend their property, but the force must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat posed. In Section 282 of the Criminal Code, it is clear that while force can be employed to prevent unlawful interference with property, excessive force—especially lethal force—will not be justified unless the individual’s life is also in danger.

In Uguru v. The State (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt.771) 90, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant’s use of lethal force to protect his property was excessive. The court held that while the defendant was justified in defending his property, the use of deadly force against a non-life-threatening threat could not be condoned.

Battered Woman Syndrome

Although Nigerian courts have not fully adopted the Battered Woman Syndrome as a legal doctrine, there have been discussions around its application in cases where victims of domestic violence resort to force against their abusers. In such cases, the principles of proportionality and immediacy still apply, and the use of force must be deemed necessary at the time of the confrontation.

Conclusion

The doctrine of self-defense under Nigerian law is clear: individuals may use force to protect themselves, but only within reasonable limits. Proportionality and immediacy are key factors in determining whether the use of force is justified. Nigerian courts have consistently ruled against claims of self-defense where the force used was excessive or when the threat was not imminent. As such, while self-defense is recognized as a valid legal defense, it must be carefully applied, and individuals who use violence under the guise of self-defense must ensure that their actions are commensurate with the threat they face.