23/06/2021
A layman sees self-defense as the act of shielding oneself from something or someone dangerous.
This definition of self-defense is not entirely wrong, but there is more to it than just protecting oneself from harm.
You see, in law, things can get a little bit more complicated. For instance, under the Nigerian constitution, there are certain requisites for a successful self-defense plea.
These requisites are what draws the line between self-defense, manslaughter, and assault. This is why we must know what self-defense is and what it is not.
As stated by Black's Dictionary 9th Edition, self-defense is “A use of force to protect oneself, one's family or one’s property from real or threatened attack".
It has been held in a plethora of cases to mean that the accused person did the alleged act while in the process of defending either himself or some other person and that he had no pre-meditated intention to kill his attacker or to cause him grievous bodily harm. See Sule v. State (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169) 33, Fulani v. State (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1653) 237 S.C.
Does this mean that if you are punched in the face, you can stab your assailant in the neck with a knife?
No! Put in another way, you can use a less or non-deadly means by which to defend yourself from a non-deadly or deadly attack; while you are only permitted to use deadly means to defend against an equally deadly attack BUT NOT against a non-deadly attack.
For an act of violence to be considered as self-defense in court, the following requisites must be met:
● It must be proven that the defendant did not provoke the assault;
● The defendant must have used only the measure of force necessary to make an effectual defense against the assailant. That is, what the victim does in defense must be proportionate to what was done by the assailant, and action taken on self dance should not be intended to cause death, See Njoku v. State (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 299) 272, Gazzali v. State (2019) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1661) 98 S.C ;
● The death of an assailant can only be justified if the nature of the assault was the kind to cause death or grievous harm on the defendant;
● There must be concrete proof that the defendant was in danger of serious bodily harm or loss of life;
● There must be proof that there was no way of escape from the assault by retreat;
● There must have been a necessity for taking life. See Ezeokor v. State (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1654) 513 S.C, Fulani v. State (2019)1 NWLR (Pt. 1653) 237 S.C
A person who killed an assailant in self-defense could be charged with manslaughter or murder in court.
Such a person will be discharged and acquitted if it is established that they acted exclusively in self-defense, as self-defense is not a crime. It is an exculpatory defense because where it is established, it exonerates the accused person. See Ukpong v. State (2019) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1667) 1, Aminu v. State (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 481 S.C.
However, this defense cannot avail a person who killed his attacker after successfully disarming the attacker since the person's life is no longer in danger. See Ameh v. Queen (1958) SCNLR 33, David v. C.O.P (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1655) 178 S.C. Thus, where an accused person pleads the defense of self-defense and the Court finds that the killing exceeded the limits laid down or the above requisites are absent, the person would be sentenced to death in the case of murder or to life imprisonment in the case of manslaughter.
