For quite a while, there have been calls from various quarters and highly respected Nigerians, for the people to defend themselves against the incessant onslaught by terrorists and violent criminals. Retired Lt General Theophilus Danjuma first made an open call on Nigerians, to wake up to find ways to defend themselves from these attacks by all means possible. This was recently echoed by the Director General of Department of State Services, Adeola Ajayi. The right to defend one’s life and property, is enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But, what exactly does this call imply? Would it not create more chaotic security challenges, in an already precarious environment? THISDAY LAWYER sought the views of a cross-section of Nigerian legal minds on this 

A Wake-Up Call to Arms

Norrison Quakers, SAN

The recent call by the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS), urging Nigerians to defend themselves, is a clear admission that the country’s security architecture has failed. This indicts not only the intelligence agencies, but the entire security apparatus comprising Nigeria Police Force (NPF), Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force) the Civil Defence Corp and the Department of State Services (DSS).

It is also a big dent and a slap on the face of the service chiefs, the Chief of Defence Staff, the Ministers of Defence, and the National Security Adviser, that these individuals that the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces  of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has delegated authority to, to secure the country’s internal safety and territorial integrity, by Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 which provides: “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government”, based on the respective laws in terms of the internal security and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, have failed to do so.

The implication is grim, the Government has by this pronouncement, conceded its failure in ensuring the security and welfare of its citizen. Consequently, there’s now a pressing need to review the Firearms Act, particularly Section 32, which centralises the power to approve and regulate the possession of assault firearms and non-assault rifles on the President and Governors of the respective States. It then means that communities and individuals must be licensed to carry, and be trained in the use of firearms to secure and protect their territories, in view of the superior weaponry of the assailants of the Nigeria State through the activities of banditry, kidnapping, terrorism and internal conflagration, through the use of sophisticated assault firearms.

This call, without a framework risks uncontrolled proliferation of firearms, community clashes, attack on governmental agencies empowered to protect and ensure internal peace and security of the country against internal and external aggression, and the undermining of the relevance of the armed forces. 

Rather than suggest that Nigerians should be empowered to protect themselves, the Government must overhaul the current national security architecture and invest heavily in the deployment of technology, in fighting the rag-tag mercenaries currently plaguing and placing the country under siege from unmanned forests and thick bushes, otherwise known as ungoverned spaces. 

The era of physical engagement has given way to the deployment of drones, surveillance and other defence gadgets, and collaboration with technologically advanced nations for military hardware, purchase of strategic defence shield and attack weaponry.

In order to further secure the territory and address the issue of Banditry, Insurgency, Kidnapping now largely localised in the country, it is imperative that the National Defence Council of Nigeria is convened on a regular basis, for the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to get regular updates and be advised on the best approach to secure the territory. 

In addition, it is imperative to suggest that the composition and scope of both the National Defence Council and the National Security Council be expanded to include not only security experts, but Governors of the respective States who are excluded by the provisions of Items 16 and 25 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. Whilst the National Defence Council exists to advise the President on matters relating to the defence of the territorial integrity of Nigeria, the National Security Council on the other hand is established to advise the President on matters relating to public security, including matters relating to any organisation or agency established by law for ensuring the security of the Federation.

The implication of these two provisions, in the light of what the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS) has stated, is that these two bodies have failed the President in ensuring that the Nigerian territory is well under his watch as a civil in military gap. In essence, this is not just a call to arms – it is a wake-up call to reform, rethink, rejig and rebuild a national security system that has clearly lost grip.

Norrison Quakers, SAN, Constitutional Lawyer, Lagos

Our Jurisprudence Provides for Self-Defence 

Prof Roland Otaru, SAN

The DSS advice that citizens should protect themselves,  is not out of place in this season  of anomie.  This is because, our Jurisprudence provides for self defence. The Law doesn’t state what type of self defence should be used, but it must be commensurate  with what the opponent had used in  attacking his victim. The DSS Director, rightly chose his language!

Prof Roland Otaru, SAN

Call for Self-Defence is Overdue 

Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN

In the light of the recent upsurge in killings and violence all over the country, it would seem that the security agencies are overwhelmed in the task of securing the lives and property of the citizens.

The solution is for the people to team up with the Government, to tackle the challenges associated with insecurity. A pro-people approach must be developed, whereby neighbourhood policing and security are entrenched.

To achieve this successfully, these local initiatives must be empowered and strengthened with sophisticated weaponry and ammunition that will match, or surpass that of the bandits and terrorists.

Nigerians are already defending themselves, so it is nothing new to call for self-defence, given the seeming failure of Government to discharge its basic responsibilities as stated in Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution, that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.

The colossal amount of money budgeted for security every year has not yielded the desired result of peace and safety, so it is good to try other approaches different from the traditional security measures.

Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN

Call for Citizens to Defend Themselves: Mere Political Rhetoric or Genuine Attempt to End Insecurity – A Dispassionate Look

Major Ben Aburime (Rtd), FICMC

Nigeria is never short of intrigues and trending issues. Still, none of them compares in magnitude and impact like the now odorous and stinking state of insecurity prevalent nationwide.

 So bad has the situation become, that both the Federal Government, some of its Security Agencies and even other reputed security experts and notable figures have made public statements on their idea of surviving the onslaught. President Tinubu recently advised State Governors, to arm their citizens to defend themselves. The Director General of the State Security Service, otherwise called the Directorate of State Services or DSS, at a public function recently, advised Nigerians to rise and defend themselves. This statement has always been the view of General Theophilus Yakubu Danjuma (Rtd), that citizens should rise up to defend themselves. It is to these recent calls, that I seek to speak to here.

To start with, every individual has an inalienable right to life and protection of his property. In the field of Jurisprudence, there are distinct schools of thought as to the source of these rights. While the Naturalists believe that everyone acquires those fundamental Rights as God-given or originating from a Universal Moral Order (Higher Law) and accruing to everyone at birth, some other schools, like the Realists and Positivists want us to believe that the Constitution or some other positive legislation, such as the provisions of Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federation, confers these rights. Whatever the school of thought, what is common ground to all is that individual rights do exist. No right is more sacrosanct as the right to life and preservation of one’s own property. So important are these rights, that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria allows for the use of force to protect one’s life and property, even if death were to occur in the process. Similarly, the Criminal Code has provisions whereby self-defence constitutes a general form of defence, in some criminal cases like murder and manslaughter. Against this background, the call to citizens to defend themselves is very apt.

Nigeria has been a nation under siege, for a while now. Graduating from purely criminal activities by some miscreants, through religious fanaticism to the apparent organised armed militants bent on territorial gains, the citizens have been cowed and brutalised, with neither the Central Government nor State Government seeming to be capable of any meaningful reaction, other than the usual high phrase statements of bringing the culprits to book, and no more. Every day, reports of attacks and killings of several communities fill the public space of our social and print medias, each successive attack being more brutal and gruesome. 

So, when these calls for people to defend themselves begin to emerge, it raises eyebrows for several reasons. Even more curious is the status of those making the calls. For a start, the Director-General of the DSS is no mean an officer. He is one of the powerful figures who have direct access to President Tinubu, so that when both public figures made their calls, albeit at different times and occasions, what immediately comes to my mind is that the professional security chief has successfully sold his ideas to Mr President. If this is correct, it is a most welcome move. 

Again, no mean a notable General than T Y Danjuma, has always held this same view. General TY Danjuma needs no introduction. Alongside his other three Course Mates of Generals Alani Akinrinade, Emmanuel Abisoye (now HRH Oba Abisoye) and Martins Adamu, the four Musketeers, were the real powerful members of the then Supreme Military Council that ruled Nigeria from 1975 – 1979. One of the key military men who collaborated with Murtala Mohammed to usher-in General Yakubu ‘Jack’ Gowon’s administration, TY Danjuma is himself a living legend and living history in today’s Nigeria. When a man of that status speaks on any national issue, even Angels ought reasonably to listen.

Reservations on the Call

Notwithstanding all this, how realistic or practicable is this call? I have serious reservations concerning the current call for self-defence, and I have my reasons for these reservations. I invite the readers on a voyage of discovery together.

First, there is a suspected Federal Government complicity in the current state of insecurity. In a recent television interview, Brig General Kunle Togun, fell short of outrightly accusing former President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration of deliberately disarming the citizens and opening Nigeria’s borders for the influx of his kinsmen, into Nigeria. I totally agree with Togun. These twin activities coincided with the emergence of the armed Fulani Herdsmen, terrorising the nation with their state-of-the-art sophisticated weaponry. In the Northeast, they are called dissidents and Islamic militants; in the Middle Belt, they are Herders clashing with Farmers; in the South-south, they are Hunters prospecting for rare games; in the Southwest, they are Kidnappers with no pretensions. When they visit terror on their victims, mere condemnation and no more follows. There were those arrested by the Vigilantes, under Governor Obaseki’s tenure in Edo State. The military were reportedly sent in to release them, while killing the Vigilante Head. A former, resisting attack on his farm in Adamawa State or so, has his conviction upheld by the Supreme Court. The ratio for the decision was that the accused farmer who killed an armed attacking Herder, had the opportunity to escape. Against this background, one is bound to question the sincerity of the Federal Government in this call.

 Secondly, no citizen in today’s Nigeria can muster the nature of weapon to resist the invaders, without the Federal Government first revisiting its Firearms Policy, liberalising the ownership and control, to enable people arm themselves with a view to resisting the incessant attacks.

 The call for State Governors to arm their people unto resistance, is asking them to play Moses without a God. The Central Government that has refused to allow State Security outfits like Amotekun, Ebubeagu, Atanakpa, etc, to carry a class of weapons, cannot be heard to be directing the same States to take full responsibility for their people’s safety. For now, every weapon and force of coercion vests exclusively on the Federal Government and its security organs like the Armed Forces, the DSS, the Nigeria Police Force, the National Security And Civil Defence Corp, etc. Until the creation of State Police Forces becomes a reality, the instant security challenges are neither abating, nor going anywhere soon. Without reviewing the Firearms Act, anyone attempting to arm his or herself is opening up themselves for the sucker-punch from the Nigeria Police, even the DSS now making the call for self-preservation. A classic illustration of this point, is the case of General Zamani Lekwot and his Zango Kataf people of Kaduna State. When his people or community was under constant attack by the invading armed Fulanis, the diminutive General helped organise his people to resist the invasion and what he described as ethnic cleansing. It was during the epoch of military rule, whereby both at the Centre and the States, his contemporaries and juniors alike were in power. What the courageous General lacked in physical size or stature, he more than compensated in intelligence and courage. The modus of the invaders of his community, is akin to what we witness today. Checkmating the invaders, one would have expected the then military junta to salute the General’s courage and resourcefulness. What happened instead, was mind-bogging. The General was arrested, tried for whatever offence, convicted, and sentenced to death. It was apparent that IBB’s Supreme Military Council was not dictating the affairs or calling the shots; some obscure forces were in actual control. Finally, the unrepentant and unapologetic General’s life was finally spared. In this respect, my respected General was luckier than the Adamawa State farmer, who the Supreme Court of Nigeria insists must die, for fighting off an armed attacker, instead of running for his life or attempting to escape. Of course, Buhari’s Chief Personal Assistant, a Yoruba man, and not Fulani, once told a bewildered nation that it was safer to surrender their ancestral land, than die protecting it. For these reasons, it is doubtful how potent or realistic it would be, for citizens to rise up to defend and protect themselves under the present settings and security configurations. 

Well, it is also possible to ‘fight back’, resorting General Obasanjo’s one time advice to the South Africans, then under White Minority Rule, that they should employ Juju-men and Charms (Otumokpo) to fight the White Settlers. My General knows best, and to that, I can only add that the Juju be mixed with some anointing oil and holy water, with Priests and Priestesses trumpeting, singing and dancing round their communities, like Joshua once did over Jericho. Otherwise, the Government should live up to their responsibilities of protecting its citizens, from both internal and external aggression. At least, that has been the idea since the times of old, that under the scheme called the Social Contract, the generality submitted their rights to the Sovereign, who will in turn protect them and enhance their wellbeing. that sovereign today, is the Federal Government of Nigeria, and it cannot renege on that duty/obligation.   

 Finally, the President’s call for State Governors to act to protect their people, within the framework of the current setting, smacks more of a political chess game with people’s lives. In a similar vein, I find the Sultan of Sokoto’s call for the military to kill the killers, also curious. In his father, Abubakar Sadiq III’s time, a word from his Palace would have been enough for the citizens to rise up against these armed Herders.

 Another issue the Central and State Governments should address is the use of trailers, to ship these suspected militia men across the various forest areas of the Southern area. While peaceful and peaceable migration is allowed, deliberately desecrating Middlebelt areas, transporting the people from their homeland to other places, while occupying and renaming the conquered places, calls for serious interrogation. The Federal Government of Nigeria should also not give the impression, whether by their words or body-language, of being overwhelmed by the current situation. A strong Central Government is still a better option to having a failed State, ruled by militia warlords.

Major Ben Aburime (Rtd), FICMC; Legal Practitioner; Mediator; Security Consultant; Member, Amnesty International; Programmer and AI & Robotics Software Designer

Right to Self-defence is Fundamental

Adesegun Talabi

The proposition of widespread gun ownership as a solution to terrorism and banditry, raises serious concerns. A critical challenge, lies in affordability and access. The most vulnerable populations, who are often the primary victims of these violent criminal activities, are economically disadvantaged, illiterate and too impoverished to navigate the legal processes and financial burdens associated with acquiring and maintaining legal firearms. This would create a situation, where those most in need of protection are excluded from the proposed solution.

Moreover, the socio-economic realities and levels of social volatility amongst the poor, cannot be ignored. Increased access to firearms in the hands of individuals, particularly those facing hardship and frustration, would inevitably escalate other forms of violence and social unrest, thereby worsening the existing security challenges rather than alleviating them.

Addressing the root causes of insecurity through robust law enforcement, improved governance, infrastructural development, and strategic counter-terrorism measures remains the most sustainable and equitable approach to ensuring the safety and security of all Nigerians. The right to self-defence is fundamental, but the widespread arming of the populace, in the current Nigerian political and socio-economic climate, carries substantial risks and is the literal equivalent of adding fuel to a raging blaze.

Adesegun Talabi

Defend Yourselves With Reasonable Force

Jonathan Gunu Taidi, SAN 

For over two decades, various communities, particularly in the North-Central region of Nigeria, have witnessed large-scale genocide and destruction of their farmlands and other property. Now, we are witnessing a rise in the occupation of these lands, proving that it was all a deliberate plan to force innocent citizens off their lands and turn them into refugees. 

The right of self-defence available to these victims, and would be victims is no less valid than the right of self-determination available to Nigeria as a country. The recent calls by the Director General of the State Security Service and Rtd Gen TY Danjuma, reinforce the provisions of Section 33 (2) (a) 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which guarantees the use of reasonable and necessary force against these aggressors and attackers.  

It is therefore, appropriate for the State Governments to facilitate the ownership of commensurate weapons, to enable vulnerable individuals to defend themselves, thereby breaking the monopoly of the instruments of violence enjoyed by the attackers/aggressors.

Jonathan Gunu Taidi, SAN, former NBA General Secretary

Call for Self-Defence is Questionable 

Dr Tonye Tamuno Jaja

Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (CFRN),  states that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government, and the participation by the people in their government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution”.

Section 33 CFRN 1999, which clearly states that every person has a right to life and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in the execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria.

It is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government of Nigeria, to provide security of lives and property for all Nigerians.

Gen TY Danjuma too, has been saying it. It is not proper for General TY Danjuma to encourage citizens to defend themselves.

What does that Imply? 

Citizens who wish to defend their property can apply for firearms licence that is issued by the Inspector-General of Police under the Firearms Act.

Alternatively, such citizens can hire a private security firm licensed under the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps Act, 2007.

I disagree with the idea that citizens should defend themselves against terrorists who do not play by any rules of engagement. They do not respect the Geneva Convention on Laws of Armed Conflict.

Will that not create chaos in the already complicated system? It will create more problems than solutions.

Where will they legally get the arms and ammunition? 

From the Nigerian Police, or the National Centre for Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons ?

What are the guarantees that such Arms won’t be put to wrong use? 

0% guarantee.

Dr Tonye Tamuno Jaja

A Case for Liberal Firearms Licence Regime

Emmanuel Onwubiko

Agonising Experiences

Fellow Nigerians, who is so pretentiously religious, that you oppose the call for the Nigerian Government to introduce a liberal firearms licensing regime in Nigeria? How would you feel if you returned home in one of the State capitals, or even your countryside home with your newly wedded wife after a beautiful two weeks honeymoon in in the United Arab Emirate’s city of Dubai, and on the same night you are attacked by a lone gunman who before you say jack descended on your new wife after retrieving all your telephones and locked you up in one of the rooms and then proceed to taste the forbidden fruit for which you had laboured all these years before she agreed to walk down the isle with you? 

My reflection on this burning issue in 2014, is as relevant as it is in the Nigeria of 2025 with several reported cases of massive killings by armed non-State actors, and there is evidence that the security forces are overwhelmed. 

So, I ask, will you go down on your knees to pray for him after he had had enough of your new wife, and stolen as much as he needs and zoomed off in his motorcycle?

Lack of Adequate and Well-Trained Police Personnel 

On many occasions, in many homes all across the length and breadth of Nigeria, this same agonising experience is what many people face, without the slightest possibility that the so-called law enforcement agents would come to their rescue, or even be capable of carrying out science/evidence-based investigations that would result in the eventual apprehension of such animalistic creatures who terrorise Nigerians and rob them of their hard earned resources, even as many young women are raped repeatedly by this night marauders.

Take a typical case of a village in Imo State, whereby the only Police post nearest to it is about several kilometres away, and indeed, what you identify as Police post is only a makeshift contraption made up of ramshackle shafts and huts that could take at least three operatives, who, in any case, are not sufficiently armed and trained and are indeed, angry for being posted to the village which they see as punishment posting, rather than being posted to township and cities where they could become lucky to be detailed by their DPO to go for some private security duties in a house of one of the rich politicians or businessmen, no matter how dubious such a character is.

Misuse of Police Personnel 

This is the scenario in most of the villages I know in my home State of Imo, as well as many other States in Nigeria, and the consequence is that since no one is charged with the duty of protecting these ordinary Nigerians, they are left to their own designs and fate, meaning that they are vulnerable to all varieties of attacks by the several freelance armed hoodlums that currently parade about in Nigeria.

What now obtains in many States of Nigeria, is that the moment any well to do person intends to visit the countryside to be with his/her Parents (who, in any event, are protected all through the year on the sponsorship of the bread-winner son/daughter), or indeed, distant relations that person will surely make independent arrangements on how to secure himself/herself, and what this means is that the nearest DPO would be approached for private security and heavy money exchanges hands. By this way, too many cities and townships in Nigeria are grossly unguarded and not protected by those paid with taxpayers money to carry out these duties constitutionally. An average political office holder is surrounded all the time by at least twelve armed security operatives paid at public expense, and these same members of the public are left to face the vicissitudes associated with an anarchic environment that Nigeria has become. In Borno State for instance, since the violent Islamic insurgency began, villagers are killed and their houses destroyed without speedy and effective State Government security intervention. But, the moment these violent extremists had disappeared into God knows where, the State Governor will ride in his several chauffeur driven automobiles with a retinue of over five battalions of soldiers and armed Police guards to visit the victims left behind after the devastation and he would majestically announce donation of paltry sums of money as compensation and promise to rebuild their houses. So the lives of Nigerians are worth a few pennies while those elected by these same people to govern them democratically have now cornered all the security guards to themselves?

Right to Life

Meanwhile Section 33(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria of 1999 (as amended) clearly spells out in white and black, that every Nigerian has the inalienable right to life. How then do you safeguard this sacred constitutional right to life in a situation of near-anarchy which has exacerbated with the arrival armed Islamic terrorists known as Boko Haram, who most times, invade towns and villages killing, maiming and destroying innocent lives and property of Nigerians, and the security forces seem clearly unable to provide security for all people?

Boko Haram/Terrorism

In 2014, the then Minister of Information, Mr Labaran Maku told the BBC television in an interview conducted on Friday May 9th, 2014, that the North Eastern segment of Nigeria is such a large expanse of land. This is interpreted to mean that the soldiers cannot, and should not be expected to be everywhere in the three States under emergency rule in the terrorism-prone Adamawa, Yobe and Borno State. If the States that are under partial emergency are not sufficiently protected, how much more do you expect that other States would be protected? Little wonder then that in the North West and North Central Nigeria, armed hoodlums suspected to be Fulani herdsmen, have been on rampage killing and destroying many lives and villages.

Only on Thursday May 8th, 2014, the online version of The Guardian Newspaper of the United Kingdom, reported that details emerged of a massacre of as many as 300 people close to Nigeria’s border with Cameroon, while the Islamist group continued to hold more than 200 kidnapped schoolgirls.

These school girls were kidnapped at gunpoint by the armed Islamic rebels since April 14th, 2014, and the leader of this outlawed terrorists group, Abubakar Shekau, bragged on YouTube that his group would sell those captured innocent girls as slaves. It is suspected that they may have been driven to the border town, between Cameroon and Adamawa.

The then US President, Barack Obama, was quoted by this British newspaper as saying that the kidnappings and murders in Nigeria, as well as the war in Syria and other conflicts, showed humanity’s “darkest impulses”. So, what will Obama say now in 2025, when over 300 natives of Plateau State and Benue State were killed by armed herders within three weeks?

In early 2014 The Guardian of England said the latest insurgent attack in Nigeria, targeted the town of Gamboru Ngala. Gunmen burned buildings and fired on civilians, as they tried to flee. The Nigerian Senator, Ahmed Zanna, put the death toll at 300, citing information provided by locals. This Senator is facing mounting allegations, of his suspected links to these same Boko Haram. Zanna said the town had been left unguarded, because soldiers based there had been redeployed north towards Lake Chad in an effort to rescue the kidnapped girls. Witnesses said Boko Haram fighters riding in armoured trucks and on motorcycles, had stormed Gamboru Ngala and overrun the town.

A medical officer in the Cameroon army, which has reinforced security at the border, said it believed more than 200 people had been killed in the town. “Some of the bodies were charred. It was horrific. People had their throats slit, others were shot”, he said.

Ownership of Firearms and Global Trends

Such crude display of bestial barbarism by these Islamic rebels and many other criminal acts of treachery and mass killings by a range of gunmen, has made it imperative that the Nigerian Government should revisit her strict but unwise stance, against individual ownership of guns for self protection.

In many countries of the World, firearms licenses are available on certain terms and for some category of law abiding citizens. In Switzerland, gun policies are unique in that, able bodied men between the ages of 20-30 are actually required to have fully automatic firearms in their houses. According to a research by Aaron Spulor who posted this information on his blog, this gun policy in Switzerland is in case the emergency militia needs to be called, as the country has no permanent army. 

In Switzerland, a licence is needed to own hunting weapons. Brazil has one of the most liberal gun policies, in the World. Anyone over the age of 25 may own a gun, if it is registered and kept indoors. In Czech Republic, anyone over 18 who has no criminal record may own a firearm, although a certain licence is required for those above 21 and up. Citizens of Czech Republic may also carry concealed weapons, without specifying a reason. In Italy, the Constitution does not provide for firearm licence, but citizens over 18 with an unblemished criminal record can apply for a licence. Households can have up to three ‘common’ firearms, six weapons for shooting sports, and an unlimited number of hunting weapons. Aaron Spulor wrote that, in Germany, Germans over 18 years of age since the enactment of the Weapins Act of 1972 may own a firearm, but, they must pass a test of ‘trustworthiness, knowledge and accuracy’ and prove necessity.

In these jurisdictions, there is evidence that crime rates are minimal, but, in Nigeria where Government disallows people from bearing firearms, except useless hunting Dane guns for the village hunters, armed hoodlums have wasted hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, and these lives would have been saved if Nigerians with sound mental state and clean criminal records were licensed to carry firearms. Section 220 (1) of the Nigerian Constitution clearly supports the issuance of firearms licences on certain strict conditions, since even the wording of that section specifically states that the National Assembly Shall legislate into being the establishment of military training camps for all Nigerian adults, and if such are not yet legislated, then the President of Nigeria can order the use of public schools for the purposes of compulsory military training for law abiding adult Nigerians.

Will the Nigerian Government stand idly by, and watch as armed hoodlums decimate Nigerians in their thousands before it can do the needful to legalise individual firearm ownership under certain regulations? My take is that the Nigerian Government must liberalise firearms ownership in Nigeria, as one way of safeguarding right to life since the armed forces and Police have proved seriously challenged and unable to be everywhere to protect the lives of Nigerians, and the Constitution makes it imperative that the security and welfare of every citizen is the primary duty of government. A stitch in time saves nine.

Emmanuel Onwubiko, Founder, HURIWA; former National Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria

Nigerians have the Right of Self-Defence 

P. D. Pius

Let me state unequivocally that Nigerians have right to self defence. It is both a constitutional and statutory. It flows in naturally, even in the biological make-up of a man to flight or fight in the face of an attack. I will therefore, embrace in whole, the call by DSS for Nigerians to defend themselves. It also falls within the parameters of what Gen. T. Y. Danjuma, Former Minister of Defence, has advocated several times.

There are two statutory kinds of right of self-defence available to the people under the law. The first is provided in Section 33(2)(a) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as Amended). For the avoidance of doubt, I will layout this provision as follows that a person or an attacker or aggressor cannot claim that being unlawfully killed by use of force where it was required:

“For the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the defence of property”.

This constitutional right of self-defence, is not like the second category of self-defence provided in Criminal or Penal Code that has so many conditions. There is a principle of law that once the Constitution has made a provision over a subject- matter, then no other statute can add, amend, expand or otherwise contradict what the Constitution has provided. See the case of JEGEDE & ANOR v INEC & ORS (2021) LPELR-55481(SC). See also Section 1(3) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The only condition of this constitutional right of self-defence, is the use of a reasonable force as the circumstances may permit. Thus, if the circumstances require that you respond to an aggressor with firearms or machete or a weapon, then it will be constitutional to do so. 

The second statutory right of self-defence is provided in Section 59 of the Penal Code Law. It provides that “nothing is an offence which is done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence”. We have similar provisions in Criminal Code Laws of Southern States. The Penal Code proceeded to make other provisions, that you can defend any person or your property against any attacker.

However, the Penal Code introduced further conditions of the right of self-defence. These conditions are that:

1. There must not be any means of escape. In this case that attackers are warring against local communities with sophisticated long range firearms, I don’t think there is any means of escape. Even if you run like Usain Bolt, you can not escape an AK-47.

2. Proportional use of force. This means that if the attacker uses AK-47 riffle to attack you, you may respond with a proportional force in defence. Thus, it is not allowed to use firearms when the attacker is using only a machete. It’s like a tit for tat.

3. The harm to be inflicted, must not be more than necessary. For instance, if you have succeeded in disarming or disabling the attacker, there is no excuse to finish him off. You can at that point, hand him over to State authorities for prosecution. This is where the Attorney-General of Plateau State will come in. 

4. There must also be no opportunity to call the aid of public authorities like Police, DSS, Army etc. In most of the rural villages where these attacks take place, there are no Police stations, no military units or formations, and no presence of public authority. Hence, this condition is almost always already met.

I can therefore, say that, the Constitutional right of private defence has less requirements than that provided in Penal Code, and the Penal Code cannot expand or contradict the Constitution. 

Invoking the right to self-defence, will not result in anarchy. This is because there is a procedure to acquire firearms, for self-defence. The Inspector General of Police has the power to license persons who may carry firearms, under the Firearms Act. We cannot feign ignorance that local communities in Nigeria are being attacked by firearms, including AK-47 combat rifles. It is also not in dispute that there are no Police stations or adequate military formations in these local communities, to protect the people from these unlawful attacks and mass murder. Therefore, the State Governments can champion the process of securing firearms licence for local communities, for the purpose of private defence of these communities. These are legal solutions that may be explored. Communities can on their own, apply to IGP and seek licences to hold firearms for private defence. Many individuals have applied before now. So it is nothing new. To stand helpless and allow an attacker kill you and your children, is unfortunate. Let me give you example with explosives. Miners in Nigeria with licenses have never run short of supply of explosives, for their legitimate business. Hence, once people are licensed, the supply of arms and ammunition will meet the demand by market forces.

P. D. Pius, Legal Practitioner, Abuja

Call for Self-Defence Confirms Failure of Government Defence Mechanism 

Kunle Edun, SAN

The agitation to resort to the communal defence option, is a confirmation of the failure of the current Government security arrangement. Even the Chief of Defence Staff was once reported to have said that, the military cannot be everywhere to protect the citizens from bandit and herdsmen attacks, many of whom are said to be foreigners. This is not far from the truth, and coupled with the snail speed in commencing State Police, the only option left is for the citizens to defend themselves. They cannot just be watching while their people are being killed, and Government is not doing enough to protect them. 

In law, self-defence against any form of attack is allowed. Many of the local communities, now operate the vigilante system. What remains, is for Government to issue a protocol on the arms they can carry. However, it good to note that these attackers carry heavy arms, so the communities should be allowed to carry same heavy arms, but there should be a procedure for accounting of the use of the arms. 

There is no more time. If Government doesn’t assist the Local communities to protect themselves, the communities may be forced to do it alone, and that may not augur well for Government. So, State and local Policing should commence in earnest.

Kunle Edun, SAN

Call for Self-Defence is Symptomatic of Government Abdication of Core Responsibility

Dr Monday Ubani, SAN

The recent call by the DSS Director urging Nigerians to defend themselves, echoing earlier remarks by General TY Danjuma, is deeply troubling and symptomatic of a State abdication of its primary duty. Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) clearly states that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.”

Encouraging self-defence in a nation grappling with insecurity, risks legitimising anarchy, as it may lead to lawlessness, abuse, and further breakdown of order. While self-preservation is a natural instinct, the State must not shift its constitutional responsibility to the citizenry.

Rather than calls for self-defence, the Government should strengthen law enforcement, intelligence, and justice systems to restore public trust and security.

Dr Monday Ubani, SAN, Abuja

​