Is self defence justified?

There is a popular saying that ‘defence is justice.’ Hence in the process of being attacked, someone tends to launch a counter-attack to defend him or herself to prevent someone from harming him/her. Abimbola Akindunbi and Kayode Olabanji  speak with lawyers on the issue. Excerpts:

 

Messr Paul Attah, a legal practitioner

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

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

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

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

The law is geared towards protecting the assailant and the victim attacked. And to achieve these rules, principles have been laid down to regulate the applicability of self defence.

Some of these principles include;  Imminent threat of harm. and duty to retreat.

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

Justice, is not a one-way traffic arrangement. But must be seen in three perspectives e.g justice  to the victim, to the assailant and to the society.

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

Though self defence as desirable as it is, should only be used as a last resort, where the element of  imminent danger or threat is anticipated as in the case of Ruga settlement, the use of self defence may not be justice as it is anticipated.

But where the attack on citizen(s) is a imminent danger, reasonable force to subdue the danger would amount to justice of the situation.

 

 

Mrs Olubukola Adedire, a legal practitioner

Self defence,  must be  necessary at the time the action was taken. Defence of self defence completely exonerates, as the accused is not liable for any punishment or offence.

When  a person unlawfully assaults another and the other assaulted him with violence as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm for preservation of life from death  he is not criminally responsible for using any such force as is reasonably  necessary  for such preservation,  although such force may cause death or grievous harm.

In the same vein, where a person defends himself against being kidnapped and was inadvertently killed, the said kidnapper in the act of securing his safety and life is not criminally liable for using force as reasonably necessary at that material time. In a situation where A hits B with pestle on the head, such is intentional but where A hits B with a stick on the leg and B dies, then such can be said to be unintentional,  herein provocation on the other hand must be sudden and not premeditated as the defense of provocation does not completely exonerate unlike the Defence of self defence and the punishment  of provocation is reduced to manslaughter.

A scenario where a man embarking on a journey leaving the wife and children at home to return later in the week or day but unfortunately could not embark on such journey  any longer due to break down of car or certain disappointment connected to his working place then arrived home unannounced meeting his wife and a concubine in their matrimonial bed naked, while the husband was provoked to hit the concubine on the head and he dies, then that will not amount to murder, but rather manslaughter probably because such act of the husband was sudden, not expected of the scene he met at home.

 

 

Mr Gani Ashiru, an Ikare-based legal practitioner

Self defense is both mitigating and exonerating factor in the defence of murder charge depending on the nature of attack and the act of defence.

This is a universally accepted rule.

In case of kidnapping a victim who has a reasonable belief that he is being kidnapped may use any immediate and or available weapon (with him) to free himself, not withstanding the resultant effect. A successful plea of self defence here will exonerate him. I may add that this defence can even be to save another person.

However, in determining the bonafide of the defence, the court will consider the weapons used by the deceased and the defendants and the strength of the parties.

The defence will not be available where the kidnapper abandoned his victim and he is fleeing away or where the defendant having freed himself went away to get a lethal weapon to attack his hitherto assailant.

The defence is not also available in a situation where the kidnapper was/is killed after his arrest.

 

 

Mr Olaleye Steve Akintububo,  a legal practitioner

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

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

But to avail himself of this defence, the defendant must show that his life was in such grave danger by the act of his attacker that the only option left for him to save his own life was to kill his attacker.  He must show that he did not want to fight and was prepared to withdraw.

Furthermore, the defendant must show that the force used in his defence was commensurate with the force brought to him by his assailant.

If for example, the attacker was armed with a thin stick (not a club), the defence will not avail the defendant if he used cutlass or gun to kill the assailant and then turn to hide under the defence of self defence. But if the assailant attacked the defendant with a cutlass and he retaliated with a cutlass to defend himself, then the defence of self defence in my humble opinion will avail him of the charge of murder. There is the need to clarify the disparities between “murder” and “manslaughter” here.

Murder is classified in legal circle as premeditated killing. This means one has planned to kill his adversary. The killing is not just spontaneous but orchestrated and well planned. That is murder. But in the case of manslaughter or other homicides that are not murder, such killings are not premeditated. It just happened by way of negligence, as a result of provocation or by accident. All these acts leading to killings will mitigate the charge of murder to manslaughter but will not prevent the defendant from being sentenced accordingly.

I find it funny each time a man ask me whether the law will not exonerate him from being punished if he caught a man with his wife committing adultery and killed him invariably out of provocation.

My advice for such man is to control his emotion and avoid killing such co adulterer because at best his provocation plea will only reduce his murder charge to manslaughter with its commensurate life sentence.

So in all, I want to say with respect that unlike provocation, self defence will completely discharge the defendant if successfully proved.

 

 

Mr. Kayode Adeusi, a  legal practitioner

The law allows self defence when you feel threatened and there is danger. Assuming a kidnapper wanted to kidnap you or endanger your life ,you have the right to defend your life.

In this regard. whatever you have should be used to defend yourself in as much as you can establish the act about to be truly committed against your own life.

We should also know that self defence is not the same thing as provocation.

In the instance of a man who wanted to rape a young lady and in the face of imminent danger, the lady picked up an object to hit the man’s head to become unconscious for her to escape being raped.

Also a situation where someone provoked you by calling your parents mad persons or slapped you  and you went home to pick gun to shot him. This is not commensurable with the act of provocation

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

In case someone slapped you, the best is to control your temper.

 

 

Mr. ThankGod Ekpah, a legal practitioner.

A cursory look at the provisions of our municipal laws, there are defences available virtually in all criminal offences or charge  to that effect, when there is an attempt of being kidnapped or about to be kidnapped or the person already is in the hands of kidnappers, the Law allows or permits such individual or person to use reasonable force to defend himself  and such a defence is complete defence.

In the defence to avail such person, all possible means of escape might or should have been exhausted. More also weapons used or about to be used by the defendant should also be proportionate to that of the victim or the kidnappers.

If those are successfully proved, certainly he will be exonerated because it 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, definitely there will be justice for that person.

 

 

Mr. Olatunji Adebowale,  a legal practitioner.

If you are charged for murder, there must be an intention as proof to indicate you have committed murder.

The self defence  came spontaneously when a person attacked with intention to kill you and in the process you defended yourself which led to the death of the attacker. Then, the court will not charge you for murder, rather for manslaughter, which means there is no intention.

The difference  is, murder is with intention, while manslaughter is without intention. It is now left for the court to look at the circumstances.

For example, a person being slapped and such person walked away to his/her house and returned ten minutes later with cutlass or stick to beat or revenge on whom slapped him, this is no longer self defence,

He shouldn’t allow the moment of self defence to even be more than a second.

Though, it is not allowed in law, If someone slapped you and you slapped him back immediately, the court will look at it from the angle of moment of anger. This is retaliation, but you should have gone to the police station to lodge a complaint.

Self defence is when you are coming to attack me and l used what is in my hand which commensurates with what is in your hand to defend myself.

Self defence must be commensurable.

 

 

Mr. Kehinde Aladedutire, a legal practitioner.

Self defence is one of the defences available to an accused person in our criminal jurisprudence. It is a means of using necessary force by a person to preserve himself from death, apprehension of death or grievance bodily harm.

Such a person would not, on reasonable grounds, be criminally responsible for using such force as is reasonably necessary for preservation although such force may cause death or grievous harm.

It must, however, be noted that reasonability of such force is objective. A person who is being assaulted with slippers or shoes cannot cut somebody with a cutlass or shoot at the assailant and rely on self defence. The force used by the assailant must be commensurate with the force used by the defendant.

It must also be at the hit of the moment and the passion must not have cooled down.

A person who is assaulted in the morning and goes later in the afternoon to fight the assailant which results in the assailant’s death cannot be availed with the defence of self defence.