Criminal Law I

LPU 301
SELF-DEFENCE
DR. BUKOLA O. OCHEI
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LAW, UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN
2022/2023 SESSION
Learning Objectives
At the end of the topic, students should be able to;
1. Define Self-Defence using Statute and Case law
2. Outline the requirements for Self- defence
3. Discuss the differences in the 3 Sections –Sections
286, 287,288 of the criminal code using case law
4. Utilize recent cases in discussing self-defence
Self-Defence Identified
 Also called private defence-Musa v. The State (2009) 15
NWLR (Pt. 1165)467; Akpan v. State (1994) 9 NWLR
(Pt. 368) 347; Ezeozr v. State (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1654)
513 SC
 It is the Protection of a person or property against
attempted injury, grievous harm or death.
 It is guaranteed as an excuse for resisting an attack
 Section 33 (1) of the Nigerian Constitution
 Sec.32 Criminal Code – Justifies an action
 Self-Defence is contained in Section 286, 287, 288 of the
Criminal Code
 Two Types of Assault

 Unprovoked Assault - Provoked Assault– Section

Section 286 Criminal Code 287 Criminal Code
Unprovoked Assault
 Section 286 Criminal Code permits
defence of self from an
unprovoked/uncalled for assault.
 Not cause death or grievous harm
 Sule v. State (2009) 17 NWLR 1169)33
SC
 However, Sec 286 in the 3rd paragraph
permits the use of deadly force
Requirements/Elements of a Plea of Self-
Defence
1. (a) There must be an actual attack or threat on the accused
• Real, not imagined
Nwokearu v. State (2010) 15 NWLR (1215) 1 CA; Ahmed v. State
(1997) 5 NWLR 504; Njoku v. State (1993) 6 NWLR 274
(b) There must be an apprehension of imminent attack or danger
 Must be forseeable
Nwede v. State (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 13) 641
2. The actual attack of imminent danger or apprehension
could be on the accused or another person (also known as
aiding in Self-Defence)
 Section 286 and 287 Criminal Code
 Harrison Owhoruke v. Commissioner of Police (2015) 7 SCM,
242
R v. Duffy (1967) 1 QB 63
3. The apprehension must be such as to endanger life or limb and
it must be reasonable.
 the attack on the accused must cause reasonable apprehension
of death or grievous harm
 Famakinwa v. State (2016) 1-3 S.C. (Pt. 1) 139 – snatching
knife and then killing the deceased did not prove danger
 Apugo v. State (2006) 7 SCNJ 58 – killing the defendant for
slapping him was not an indication of intent to kill.
4. Theforce used must be reasonable to make effectual
defence against assault and must not be intended or likely
to cause death or grievous harm
 Known as the proportionality test
 Objective test

 Exception – Sec 286 (2)

 Where the only cause of action was that which would result in harm or death
 Objective test
 Igwe v. State (1938) 4 WACA 117; Bassey v. State (1963) 1 ANLR 280
5. The Assault on an accused must be unlawful and
not provoked by the accused

Not against someone acting in a lawful capacity

Ngbozo v. State (1972) 2 SC 2322
Milla v. State (1985) 3 NWLR 12
Effect of a Successful Plea of Self-
Defence
 Negates the Offence
 Acquittal
 Fulani v. State (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1653) 237 SC
 Ochani v. State (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1596) 1
 Apugo v. State (2006) 7 SCNJ 58; (2011) 7 NWLR (1246)
314 CA
 Laoye v. State (1985) NWLR (Pt. 10) 832
Provoked Assault/Attack
 Section 287 Criminal Code
 A assaultsB, B then retaliates with such violence as to cause
apprehension of death or grievous harm
 Not available to a person who assaults with intent to kill or cause
grievous harm
 Edoko v. State (2015) LPELR -24402 (SC) 62 - 63
Teaser Questions

1. What if the accused was a professional boxer or

martial artist ?
2. Is the defendant under a duty to retreat?
 Aiding in Self-Defence
Section 288 Criminal Code – two
requirements
1. In assisting someone, the aider must use a
similar degree of force to defend the person
being assaulted
2. The person must have acted in good faith
Rv. Duffy (1967) 1 QB 63 – justified the
accused’s use of reasonable force in defence
of sister.
Going to a Place Where a Person Might Likely be Attacked

Milla v. State (1985) 3 NWLR 12

A person is not deprived of his right of self-
defence because he went to a place where he
could lawfully go, but where he knew he was
likely to be attacked.
 Defence of Property
Hussey (1924) 18 Cr.
App Rep. 160.
Person may defend
property