A Constitutional and Criminal Law Commentary on Self-Defence, Mob Justice and the Rule of Law in Nigeria – By Michael A. Akinola, Esq.
The video currently circulating on social media, which appears to show a person alleged to be a thief confronting a crowd while holding what appears to be a knife and a cutlass, raises a deceptively simple but profound question of Nigerian criminal and constitutional law:
Does a person suspected of stealing have the legal right to defend himself when confronted by a mob seeking to administer jungle justice?
The answer, in principle, is yes.
But that answer requires an important qualification. The law does not confer upon a suspected thief a licence to attack members of the public merely because he is accused of stealing. Equally, the law does not confer upon a mob the authority to beat, stab, burn, maim or kill a person merely because the mob believes that the person is a thief.
The legal question is therefore not whether the suspected person is morally deserving of punishment. The question is whether the force directed against him was lawful, whether he was subjected to an unlawful assault, whether he reasonably apprehended death or grievous harm, and whether the force he employed was legally justified in the circumstances.
That distinction lies at the very heart of the rule of law.
THE FIRST ERROR: A SUSPECT IS NOT A CONVICT
The description of the individual as a “suspected thief” is legally significant.
A suspicion is not a conviction.
Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 provides that every person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty. The Constitution further guarantees a person charged with a criminal offence the right to a fair hearing in public within a reasonable time before a court or tribunal.
This constitutional architecture makes one proposition unmistakable: the determination of criminal guilt belongs to the judicial process and not to an angry crowd.
The constitutional position is reinforced by section 1 of the Constitution, which establishes the supremacy of the Constitution and provides that the Constitution binds authorities and persons throughout Nigeria. Any law inconsistent with it is void to the extent of the inconsistency.
The implication is profound.
A crowd does not become a court because it is numerous.
A crowd does not become a police station because it is angry.
A crowd does not become a judge because it believes it knows who committed the offence.
And public anger does not transform an allegation into a conviction.
The Supreme Court’s decision in General Sanni Abacha & Ors v Chief Gani Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt 660) 228 remains important to the Nigerian constitutional order because it illustrates the centrality of enforceable fundamental rights and the availability of judicial remedies for their violation. The case concerned unlawful arrest and detention and ultimately engaged the relationship between domestic law, constitutional rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The constitutional lesson is applicable beyond governmental detention. The rule of law is fundamentally opposed to the proposition that a person may be subjected to violence simply because other persons have concluded that he is guilty.
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT RECOGNISE “JUNGLE JUSTICE”
The Constitution does not create a fundamental right to jungle justice.
Indeed, it points in the opposite direction.
Section 33(1) guarantees every person the right to life. Section 33(2) recognises that force may lawfully be used in circumstances permitted by law, including force reasonably necessary for the defence of a person from unlawful violence, the defence of property, the effecting of a lawful arrest, or the prevention of escape from lawful detention.
The wording of section 33(2)(a) is particularly significant for the present discussion. The Constitution expressly contemplates the lawful use of force for the defence of a person from unlawful violence.
This creates an important constitutional symmetry.
The suspected thief has a right to life.
The alleged victim has a right to protection of his property.
The person attempting a lawful arrest has legal authority to arrest.
But nobody acquires a constitutional licence to inflict unlawful violence merely because he believes another person has committed a crime.
Section 34 further guarantees the dignity of the human person and prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
Consequently, beating a suspected thief to death, burning him, stripping him naked, parading him publicly, tying him to a pole, or subjecting him to other forms of degrading violence cannot be legitimised by simply describing the conduct as “discipline” or “community justice”.
There is a fundamental difference between arresting a suspect and punishing a suspect.
The former may be lawful.
The latter is the function of a court following due process.
BUT CAN AN ORDINARY PERSON ACTUALLY ARREST A SUSPECT?
Yes.
This is where the analysis must be balanced.
The law does not require every member of the public to stand helplessly by while an offence is committed.
Section 20 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 permits a private person to arrest a suspect who commits an offence in his presence or whom he reasonably suspects of having committed an offence for which the police are entitled to arrest without warrant.
The Nigeria Police Act 2020 similarly recognises the power of a private person to arrest a suspect in specified circumstances under section 39.
But this power is not a licence for private punishment.
Section 23 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act provides that a private person who arrests a suspect without warrant must immediately hand the suspect over to a police officer or, in the absence of a police officer, take the suspect to the nearest police station.
This is the critical distinction.
Arrest is one thing. Jungle justice is another.
The law permits a private person, in appropriate circumstances, to assist in bringing a suspect into the criminal justice system. It does not permit the private person to replace the criminal justice system.
Indeed, section 8 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act expressly requires that an arrested suspect be accorded humane treatment having regard to his dignity and not subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Therefore, even if the person in the video had actually stolen something, the legal consequence would not be that members of the public acquired the right to kill him.
The proper legal consequence would be arrest, investigation, prosecution and, if guilt is established, punishment by a competent court.
THE CRITICAL QUESTION: CAN THE SUSPECT DEFEND HIMSELF?
This is where Nigerian criminal law becomes particularly interesting.
Under the Criminal Code applicable in the southern jurisdictions, section 32(3) recognises the defence of acts reasonably necessary to resist actual and unlawful violence threatened against a person. Section 286 specifically provides for self-defence against an unprovoked assault.
Section 286 provides, in substance, that where a person is unlawfully assaulted and has not provoked the assault, he may use such force as is reasonably necessary to make an effective defence. Where the assault creates a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm and the person reasonably believes that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from that danger, the law permits the use of force necessary for the defence even where such force may cause death or grievous harm.
This is not merely an academic principle.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised self-defence as a legitimate defence in Nigerian criminal law.
In Apugo v The State (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt 1002) 227, the Supreme Court considered section 286 of the Criminal Code and upheld the principle that self-defence may operate as a complete defence where the circumstances justify it. The Court found that the evidence accepted by the lower court showed that the deceased was the aggressor and that the appellant’s response was not disproportionate to the force used against him.
The importance of Apugo is not merely that self-defence exists. It is that the law examines the circumstances of the encounter rather than simply looking at the fact that the accused used force.
That principle becomes especially important in a confrontation involving several persons.
WHAT IF THE SUSPECT IS SURROUNDED BY A MOB?
Suppose, for purposes of analysis, that the video shows ten or fifteen people surrounding a suspected thief, armed with sticks, bottles, cutlasses, stones or other weapons, threatening to beat him or kill him.
The fact that the suspect is accused of stealing does not automatically make the force used against him lawful.
If the crowd’s conduct constitutes an unlawful assault and the suspect reasonably apprehends that he is about to suffer death or grievous harm, the law of self-defence may become available.
This is particularly important because self-defence is concerned with unlawful violence, not merely with the moral character of the person defending himself.
In Egheghe v State (2020), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that self-defence is available where an accused person is confronted with an unprovoked assault giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm. The Court also stressed that the defence will not avail a person who acts after the danger has passed merely as an act of revenge.
That final distinction is essential.
The law permits defence.
The law does not permit retaliation.
If a mob attacks a person and he uses force to prevent himself from being killed or grievously injured, that may constitute self-defence.
If the mob retreats, the danger has ended, and the person thereafter pursues members of the mob and attacks them out of revenge, the justification may disappear.
The legal question is therefore tied to the existence of the danger at the material time.
A PARTICULARLY RELEVANT COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
One of the most instructive Nigerian authorities for understanding this issue is Aliyu Muhammad (Wara Wara) v The State (2022), CA/J/144/C/2021, decided by the Court of Appeal, Jos Division.
The case involved a defendant who maintained that he had been attacked by persons armed with knives and a cutlass. He sustained injuries and relied upon self-defence. The Court of Appeal held that the circumstances raised a reasonable apprehension of danger and concluded that the prosecution had failed to disprove self-defence beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was consequently quashed and the appellant was acquitted and discharged.
The reasoning in that decision is particularly relevant to the viral scenario.
The Court observed that once there were reasonable grounds for the accused to believe that he was in danger, the law did not require him to wait passively for the attack to become fatal before acting.
More importantly, the Court emphasised that the prosecution must disprove the defence where the evidence raises self-defence as a genuine issue.
That is a powerful reminder that criminal law does not demand that a person stand still while an attacker decides whether to kill him.
WHAT ABOUT THE KNIFE AND CUTLASS IN THE VIDEO?
This is where legal commentary must resist emotional conclusions.
Some people may watch the video and say:
“He has a knife and cutlass, therefore he is dangerous.”
That conclusion may be factually understandable, but legally it is incomplete.
The relevant question is:
Why did he possess or display the weapon at that moment?
Was he attacking the crowd?
Was he threatening to kill people?
Was he attempting to escape?
Was he surrounded?
Was he already being beaten?
Was he trying to prevent the crowd from coming closer?
Was he reacting to an imminent threat of death or grievous harm?
Was the crowd armed?
How many people were attacking him?
Had the assault commenced?
Could he safely withdraw?
Did he pursue anybody after the danger ended?
These questions are not technicalities. They are the difference between self-defence and criminal assault.
A knife in the hand of an aggressor can be evidence of unlawful aggression.
The same knife in the hand of a person surrounded by a violent mob may potentially be an instrument of defence.
The law cannot determine the character of the weapon without considering the circumstances in which it was used.
SELF-DEFENCE IS NOT A LICENCE TO USE UNLIMITED FORCE
There is another side to the analysis.
The right of self-defence has limits.
The force must be reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
The Supreme Court in Apugo v The State considered whether the response was disproportionate to the attack and affirmed the significance of proportionality and necessity in determining whether self-defence is available.
Similarly, in Emmanuel Ogar Akong Edoko v The State (2015), the Court emphasised that self-defence requires an unlawful assault, reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm where serious force is used, and a response proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances.
Therefore, if five persons surround a suspect and begin beating him with sticks, his use of reasonable force to create an opportunity to escape may be defensible.
But if the attackers flee and he chases one of them for several streets and deliberately inflicts serious injuries after the danger has disappeared, the character of his conduct may change from defence to retaliation.
The law protects the right to survive an attack.
It does not protect revenge.
THE POSITION UNDER THE PENAL CODE
The analysis is not confined to the Criminal Code jurisdictions.
In jurisdictions governed by the Penal Code, the same fundamental doctrine exists through the law of private defence.
Section 59 of the Penal Code provides that nothing is an offence if done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Section 60 recognises the right to defend one’s own body and the body of another person against offences affecting the human body, subject to statutory restrictions. Section 62 limits the right by providing that it does not extend to inflicting more harm than necessary for the purpose of defence.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Joseph Kwaghshir & Anor v The State (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt 386) 651 is particularly significant. The Court considered the Penal Code provisions on private defence and held, on the facts, that the violence used by the appellants did not go beyond what was required in the defence of their persons. The Court further held that the prosecution had failed to disprove the defence.
This is important for the broader Nigerian position because it demonstrates that the principle is not peculiar to the Criminal Code.
Whether one approaches the question through the Criminal Code’s doctrine of self-defence or the Penal Code’s right of private defence, the law recognises a person’s right to protect himself from unlawful violence, subject to the statutory limits.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION IS EVEN DEEPER
There is a temptation to analyse this entire issue merely as a question of criminal responsibility.
That would be too narrow.
The deeper issue is constitutional.
A society governed by the rule of law cannot permit the determination of guilt, the imposition of punishment and the taking of life to be transferred from courts to mobs.
Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution declares that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. Section 17 further declares that Nigeria’s social order is founded on freedom, equality and justice and that the sanctity of the human person shall be recognised and human dignity maintained and enhanced.
The Constitution therefore does not contemplate a society in which the community simply takes the law into its own hands.
The judicial system exists precisely because human beings are capable of error.
The person accused of stealing may actually be a thief.
He may also be innocent.
The person shouting “thief” may be telling the truth.
He may also be mistaken.
The crowd may have caught the actual culprit.
It may also have caught the wrong person.
The reason for due process is that the law does not permit punishment to be based upon the assumption that the crowd cannot be wrong.
FAIR HEARING DOES NOT BEGIN AFTER DEATH
There is an even more fundamental point.
It is sometimes argued that a person suspected of theft should simply submit to the crowd because “if he is innocent, he will explain himself later.”
That argument misunderstands the nature of constitutional justice.
A person cannot meaningfully enjoy a fair hearing after he has been beaten to death.
Section 36(5) establishes the presumption of innocence. Section 36(4) guarantees a fair hearing in criminal proceedings.
The criminal justice system is deliberately designed to prevent the accusation from becoming the punishment.
That is why the law requires investigation, evidence, prosecution and adjudication.
Jungle justice collapses all four stages into one violent act.
The accusation becomes investigation.
The crowd becomes prosecutor.
The mob becomes judge.
The beating becomes sentence.
And death becomes the final “judgment”.
That is not justice.
It is the abandonment of the legal order.
BUT WHAT IF THE SUSPECT REALLY IS A THIEF?
This is perhaps the most uncomfortable question.
Suppose the man in the video actually stole something.
Would that remove his right to defend himself?
No.
His guilt for theft and his right to defend himself from unlawful violence are legally distinct questions.
A person may commit one offence and nevertheless possess a valid defence against another unlawful act committed against him.
A thief does not lose his humanity by stealing.
A suspected thief does not lose his constitutional right to life.
A convicted criminal does not cease to possess human dignity.
A person serving a prison sentence remains a person.
This is precisely why section 8 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act requires humane treatment of arrested suspects and prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The criminal law is capable of punishing theft without permitting the public to become executioners.
THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN ARREST AND JUNGLE JUSTICE
A private citizen who sees an offence may, in appropriate circumstances, arrest the suspect.
But an arrest is not punishment.
The purpose of arrest is to bring a suspect within the lawful criminal justice process.
The purpose of jungle justice is usually to punish outside that process.
Section 23 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act makes the distinction particularly clear by requiring a private person who arrests a suspect to immediately hand the suspect over to the police or take him to the nearest police station.
The law therefore recognises community assistance in law enforcement while simultaneously insisting that criminal adjudication remain within the institutions established by law.
This is the essence of the rule of law.
WHAT SHOULD A COURT ASK IF THE SUSPECT IS PROSECUTED FOR USING THE KNIFE OR CUTLASS?
If the person in the video were eventually prosecuted for causing injury or death, the court would not properly determine the matter by asking only:
“Did he cut someone?”
The court would have to consider the totality of the evidence and the relevant requirements of self-defence.
Among the material questions would be whether there was an unlawful assault against him, whether he reasonably apprehended death or grievous harm, whether he was the aggressor, whether the danger was imminent, whether the force used was necessary in the circumstances, and whether he continued using force after the danger had passed.
The courts have repeatedly stressed that self-defence is a question that must be determined from the facts of each case.
In Apugo v The State, the Supreme Court recognised that where self-defence is established, it may constitute a complete defence to criminal responsibility.
In Egheghe v State, the Supreme Court similarly emphasised that the defence does not extend to revenge after the danger has ceased.
In Muhammad v State (2022), the Court of Appeal went further in applying the principle to circumstances involving knives and an alleged attack, holding that the prosecution had failed to disprove the accused’s account of self-defence and consequently acquitting him.
THE LEGAL POSITION ON THE VIRAL VIDEO
Assuming, without independently authenticating the video, that it accurately depicts a person alleged to have stolen something being surrounded or attacked by a mob, the legal position can be stated with considerable confidence.
The fact that the person was suspected of theft did not extinguish his right to protect himself from unlawful violence.
If the crowd was attempting a lawful arrest within the limits of the law, the suspect could not automatically convert the situation into a licence for violence against the arresting persons.
But if what was occurring had ceased to be a lawful arrest and had become an unlawful assault or an attempt at jungle justice, the suspect could potentially rely upon the law of self-defence to repel the attack.
The presence of a knife or cutlass would not by itself determine the legality of his conduct.
The decisive questions would be the circumstances, the imminence and seriousness of the threat, the necessity of the response and whether the force was used defensively or retaliatorily.
The law does not require a person to wait until a mob has actually killed him before he can claim self-defence.
That would make the right meaningless.
THE RULE OF LAW
The most dangerous thing about jungle justice is not simply that an innocent person may be killed.
It is that even when the mob happens to identify the correct offender, the legal order is still damaged.
The rule of law is not tested by how we treat the innocent.
It is tested by how we treat the person we believe is guilty.
Anyone can defend the rights of a person everyone believes to be innocent.
The real test of constitutionalism is whether we continue to respect the law when the person standing before us is unpopular, accused, suspected, hated or even demonstrably guilty.
The answer cannot be that the Constitution protects only people whom society considers deserving.
Fundamental rights are not rewards for good behaviour.
They are legal restraints against arbitrary power.
If a man steals, arrest him.
If the evidence establishes his guilt, prosecute him.
If convicted, punish him according to law.
But do not beat him to death because a crowd has collectively decided that he deserves it.
And if he is unlawfully attacked in the process, the fact that he is a suspected thief does not automatically deprive him of the right to defend his life.
The law does not say that a thief has no rights.
The law says that even a thief must be dealt with by law.
That is the difference between justice and vengeance.
That is the difference between law enforcement and mob action.
And ultimately, that is the difference between a constitutional democracy and jungle justice.
CONCLUSION
The proper answer to the question, “Does a suspected thief have the right to defend himself against jungle justice?” is therefore:
Yes, potentially.
Not because the law approves of theft.
Not because a suspected thief has a licence to use violence.
Not because every person holding a knife or cutlass in a confrontation is automatically acting in self-defence.
Rather, the right exists because the Nigerian legal system recognises the sanctity of human life, human dignity, personal liberty and the lawful defence of the person against unlawful violence.
The suspected thief must answer for the alleged theft before the law.
But the mob must also answer for any unlawful violence it commits.
The criminal justice system cannot demand that a suspect submit himself to unlawful killing simply because somebody has accused him of stealing.
The law can punish a thief. The mob cannot become the law.
© Copyright Michael A. Akinola, 2026. All Rights Reserved.
