Unreasonable Burdens and Archaic Expectations: A Discourse on the Unrealistic Nature of Self-Defense Laws in Nigeria

Introduction

The doctrine of self-defense, though universally recognized, remains fraught with legal and practical complexities. Under Nigerian criminal law, individuals asserting this defense must satisfy stringent requirements, often assessed in hindsight and detached from the realities of violent encounters. The recent Supreme Court decision in Sunday Jackson v. The State (2024) SC/CR/1026/2022 has reignited this discourse, highlighting how outdated legal standards may fail to account for human instincts and the chaotic nature of life-threatening situations.

While the majority judgment reaffirmed the classical position of Nigerian criminal law, Justice Ogunwumiju’s dissenting judgment courageously confronts the widening gap between legal expectations and lived experience. Her Lordship emphasizes the law’s failure to appreciate the nuances of spontaneous violence, natural instincts of self-preservation, and the unfair imposition of absolute reasonableness on individuals facing mortal peril.

This paper critically examines the rigid nature of Nigeria’s self-defense laws, comparing them to more progressive jurisdictions, and ultimately calls for legislative reform to ensure a fairer application of the self-defense doctrine.

Self-Defense in Nigerian Criminal Law: The Classical Framework

Nigeria’s legal foundation for self-defense is rooted in Section 286 of the Criminal Code (applicable in Southern Nigeria) and Section 59 of the Penal Code (applicable in Northern Nigeria). These provisions permit a person to use reasonable force in repelling unlawful assaults. However, judicial interpretations have imposed additional requirements, including:

1. Imminence of Threat – The danger must be immediate.
2. Proportionality of Response – The force used must not exceed what is reasonably necessary.
3. No Safe Avenue of Escape – The defendant must demonstrate that they had no opportunity to retreat.
4. Absence of Provocation – The defendant must not have instigated the confrontation.

Though theoretically sound, these conditions impose a burden that, in practical scenarios, becomes highly unrealistic—especially when evaluated retrospectively in courtrooms rather than in the heat of an unpredictable confrontation.

Sunday Jackson v. The State: A Case That Demands Reexamination

The facts of Jackson illustrate these issues vividly.

On January 27, 2015, the Appellant, Sunday Jackson, was working on his farm in Kodomti, Numan Local Government Area of Adamawa State, when the deceased, Ardo Bawuro, entered with his cattle. Bawuro accused Jackson of having seen rustlers who had allegedly stolen some of his cattle. When Jackson denied any knowledge of the incident, the deceased proceeded to drive his cattle through Jackson’s farm, prompting Jackson to challenge him.

The confrontation escalated when Bawuro drew a knife after Jackson attempted to drive the cattle away. Unarmed, Jackson ran and called for help, but none was forthcoming. Bawuro pursued Jackson, stabbing him in the back of his neck and his left leg. At trial, the court, prosecution, and defense counsel visibly confirmed Jackson’s wounds, which remained undisputed under cross-examination. Eventually, Jackson was forced into a physical struggle where he wrestled the knife from Bawuro and stabbed him thrice in the throat.

Despite these circumstances, the trial court and the Court of Appeal rejected Jackson’s plea of self-defense, holding that he failed to satisfy the legal requirement of having no safe avenue of escape.

In her dissenting judgment, Ogunwumiju, JSC, emphatically challenged this conclusion:

“It is unjust to demand that a person, confronted with a sudden and unlawful attack in an isolated area, must first explore the possibility of retreat before defending themselves. Human instinct does not operate on judicial logic in moments of mortal peril.”

Her Lordship rightly identifies the fundamental issue: self-defense laws must acknowledge the instinctive and unpredictable nature of violent confrontations rather than imposing arbitrary legal conditions that fail in real-life scenarios.

The Unrealistic Expectation of Reasonableness in Crisis

One of the most glaring disconnects between law and reality in self-defense cases is the insistence on a “reasonable response.” Courts often assess this standard retrospectively, from the detached vantage of a courtroom, rather than from the perspective of a person under imminent threat.

This creates an inconsistency: while provocation is recognized under Nigerian law as a mitigating factor (reducing murder to manslaughter), the same allowance is not granted to individuals claiming self-defense. The expectation of composure and measured force in life-threatening situations disregards the natural instincts of fear, panic, and survival.

The Misapplication of the Aggressor Doctrine

Another troubling aspect of self-defense jurisprudence in Nigeria is the tendency to infer aggression or premeditation based on circumstantial factors.

In Jackson, despite the fact that he was the victim of an armed attack, courts treated him as though he bore culpability simply for not retreating effectively enough. This approach erodes the distinction between defenders and aggressors, leading to misattributed criminal liability.

The concept of mens rea—the mental element of crime—also becomes problematic. An individual acting instinctively in self-defense rarely has the luxury to form the specific intent required for murder or manslaughter. Yet, courts impose liability based on actions taken in a blur of fear and confusion.

Comparative Analysis: Lessons from Other Jurisdictions

Several jurisdictions offer more progressive approaches that align legal principles with practical realities:

1. United Kingdom—The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 allows a person to use force that is reasonable “in the circumstances as they believed them to be.” This subjective standard recognizes the complexity of split-second decisions made in self-defense.
2. United States – Many states adopt the castle doctrine, eliminating the duty to retreat when defending oneself at home. Stand your ground laws further permit individuals to use deadly force without retreating if they reasonably believe it necessary.
3. Canada—Section 34 of the Criminal Code considers the totality of circumstances, including fear, perception of threat, and the immediacy of harm. This flexible approach often leads to acquittals where defendants acted in the genuine belief that they were in danger.

These models prioritize fairness and realistic assessments of human behavior, ensuring that victims of aggression are not unjustly punished for instinctive acts of survival.

Legislative Reform: A Necessary Path Forward

To align Nigerian law with contemporary understanding of self-defense, the following reforms are proposed:

1. Amend Section 286 of the Criminal Code and 59 of the Penal Code to incorporate subjective elements, allowing courts to consider what the defendant honestly and reasonably believed at the time of the incident.
2. Abolish the absolute duty to retreat where the defender is not the aggressor and where retreat is unsafe, impractical, or unreasonable.
3. Clarify the proportionality test to permit a broader range of defensive conduct in response to serious threats, particularly when the assailant is armed or acting with deadly intent.
4. Recognize the psychological reality of violent encounters, including fear, disorientation, and the instinct to survive, when assessing claims of self-defense.

Conclusion

The decision in Sunday Jackson v. The State underscores a troubling reality: that Nigerian self-defense laws, as currently interpreted, are ill-suited to protect those who act instinctively in the face of violence. Justice Ogunwumiju’s dissenting judgment provides a rare but vital critique of the status quo, urging a rethinking of how the law perceives danger, response, and culpability.

In a legal system where justice is often delayed and police protection far from guaranteed, the right to defend oneself should not be constrained by archaic legal formulas. It is time for Nigeria to modernize its self-defense doctrine—anchoring it in fairness, practicality, and respect for the inherent right of individuals to protect their lives.

Chidi Ezenwafor Esq., MCArb
Past Secretary NBA Abuja Branch

Source: loyalnigerialawyer