By Bamidele Kolawole

Self-defence is one of the defences available to an accused person in our criminal jurisprudence. It involves using necessary force to preserve oneself from death, apprehension of death, or grievous bodily harm

Nigeria, like many other states around the world, recognises the concept of self-defence.

Citizens have the legal right to protect themselves and their property against any form of invasion.

Self-defence is considered the right to prevent harm to oneself by using a sufficient level of counteracting force.

However, the problem with the application of self-defence is determining how much force is permitted without crossing into criminality.

The law is designed to protect both the assailant and the victim. To achieve this, rules and principles have been laid down to regulate the applicability of self-defence.

Some of these principles include the imminent threat of harm and the duty to retreat.

The call for self-defence, though important, must be followed with caution and a full understanding of these regulating principles to avoid being caught in the web of the law.

Justice is not a one-way arrangement. It must be seen from three perspectives: justice for the victim, the assailant, and society.

The call for self-defence is akin to self-help, which, in other words, is an aberration to the rule of law, the pillar of our legal system.

Although self-defence, as desirable as it is, should only be used as a last resort when there is an imminent danger or threat. As in the case of the Ruga settlement, the use of self-defence may not be considered justice as anticipated.

But where the attack on a citizen(s) presents an imminent danger, reasonable force to subdue the danger would constitute justice in the situation.

The defence of self-defence completely exonerates the accused, as they are not liable for any punishment or offence.

When a person unlawfully assaults another and the other responds with violence to cause a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm in order to preserve their lives, they are not criminally responsible for using such force as is reasonably necessary for such preservation, even if that force causes death or grievous harm.

Similarly, where a person defends himself against being kidnapped and inadvertently kills the kidnapper while securing his safety, he is not criminally liable for using the force reasonably necessary at that material time.

In a situation where A hits B on the head with a pestle, this is intentional. However, if A hits B on the leg with a stick and B dies, this can be considered unintentional.

In this context, provocation must be sudden and not premeditated, as the defence of provocation does not completely exonerate, unlike the defence of self-defence. The punishment for provocation is reduced to manslaughter.

For example, if a man intending to embark on a journey leaves his wife and children at home, only to return later due to car trouble or work-related delays, and finds his wife in bed with another man, his provoked reaction of hitting the concubine on the head, resulting in death, would not amount to murder but rather manslaughter. This is because the husband’s act was sudden and not premeditated.

Self-defence is a complete answer to a charge of murder. It will discharge and acquit the defendant if they succeed in proving it.

Unlike provocation, which is another defence that only reduces murder to manslaughter with its attendant life imprisonment sentence, self-defence completely absolves the defendant of the offence of murder.

But to avail themselves of this defence, the defendant must show that their lives were in such grave danger from the attacker’s actions that the only option left to save their own lives was to kill the attacker. They must also show that they did not want to fight and were prepared to withdraw.

Furthermore, the defendant must demonstrate that the force used in their defence was commensurate with the force brought against them by the assailant.

For example, if the attacker was armed with a thin stick (not a club), the defence will not avail the defendant if they used a cutlass or gun to kill the assailant and then claimed self-defence.

However, if the assailant attacked the defendant with a cutlass and the defendants retaliated with a cutlass to defend themselves, then, in my humble opinion, the defence of self-defence will avail them of the charge of murder. It is important to clarify the distinctions between “murder” and “manslaughter” here.

Murder is classified in legal circles as premeditated killing. This means the perpetrator planned to kill their adversary; the killing was not spontaneous but orchestrated and well-planned. That is murder.

In the case of manslaughter or other homicides that are not murder, such killings are not premeditated. They occur as a result of negligence, provocation, or by accident. These factors mitigate the charge of murder to manslaughter but do not prevent the defendant from being sentenced accordingly.

I find it amusing when a man asks me whether the law will exonerate him from punishment if he catches a man committing adultery with his wife and kills him in a fit of provocation.

My advice to such a man is to control his emotions and avoid killing the co-adulterer because, at best, his plea of provocation will only reduce the murder charge to manslaughter with its commensurate life sentence.

So, in all, I would respectfully say that, unlike provocation, self-defence will completely discharge the defendant if successfully proved.

The law allows self-defence when you feel threatened and in danger. If a kidnapper attempts to kidnap you or endanger your life, you have the right to defend yourself.

In such a situation, whatever you have at your disposal should be used to defend yourself, as long as you can establish that the act was truly about to be committed against your life.

It is important to note that self-defence is not the same as provocation.

For example, if a man attempts to rape a young woman and, in the face of imminent danger, she picks up an object and hits him on the head to render him unconscious in order to escape being raped, this would be considered self-defence.

On the other hand, if someone provokes you by calling your parents derogatory names or slaps you, and you go home to retrieve a gun to shoot them, this is not commensurate with the act of provocation.

Provocation is not the same as self-defence, but self-defence is recognised in law.

In the instance where someone slaps you, the best course of action is to control your temper.

The law permits self-defense when you are threatened or in danger. If someone attempts to kidnap you or endanger your life, you are entitled to protect yourself.

In such cases, you should use whatever means are available to defend yourself, provided you can demonstrate that the threat was imminent.

It’s crucial to understand that self-defense is different from provocation.

For instance, if a man tries to rape a woman, and in the face of immediate danger, she grabs an object and strikes him on the head to incapacitate him and escape, this is considered self-defense.

However, if someone insults your parents or slaps you, and you then go home to retrieve a gun and shoot them, this is not a justified response to provocation.

Provocation and self-defense are not the same, but self-defense is legally recognized.

If someone slaps you, the most appropriate response is to control your temper.

Self-defence is both a mitigating and exonerating factor in the defence against a murder charge, depending on the nature of the attack and the act of defence. This is a universally accepted rule.

In the case of kidnapping, a victim who reasonably believes they are being kidnapped may use any immediate or available weapon to free themselves, notwithstanding the resultant effect. A successful plea of self-defence here will exonerate them. I may add that this defence can even be used to save another person.

However, in determining the bona fides of the defence, the court will consider the weapons used by the deceased and the defendant, as well as the strength of the parties.

The defence will not be available if the kidnapper abandons their victim and is fleeing, or if the defendant, having freed themselves, goes away to obtain a lethal weapon to attack their former assailant.

The defence is also not available if the kidnapper is killed after their arrest.

A cursory look at the provisions of our municipal laws shows that defences are available for virtually all criminal offences or charges. In cases where there is an attempt to kidnap, or where a person is already in the hands of kidnappers, the law allows or permits such an individual to use reasonable force to defend themselves. This defence is complete.

To avail themselves of this defence, the person must exhaust all possible means of escape. Additionally, the weapons used by the defendant should be proportionate to those used by the victim or kidnappers.

If these are successfully proved, the defendant will certainly be exonerated because self-defence is a complete defence under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, and the Criminal Code Act.

Finally, if the person can prove self-defence successfully, there will definitely be justice for that person.

Self-defence is one of the defences available to an accused person in our criminal jurisprudence. It involves using necessary force to preserve oneself from death, apprehension of death, or grievous bodily harm.

Such a person would not, on reasonable grounds, be criminally responsible for using such force as is reasonably necessary for preservation, even if that force causes death or grievous harm.

However, it must be noted that the reasonability of such force is objective. A person who is being assaulted with slippers or shoes cannot rely on self-defence if they cut the assailant with a cutlass or shoot them. The force used by the assailant must be commensurate with the force used by the defendant.

It must also be in the heat of the moment, and the passion must not have cooled down.

A person who is assaulted in the morning and then later in the afternoon fights the assailant, resulting in the assailant’s death, cannot avail themselves of the defence of self-defence.