As insecurity persists in many parts of Nigeria, Governor Umar Namadi of Jigawa State has ruled out self-defence as an effective countermeasure. He gave this advice to rebut an earlier charge by a former Minister of Defence, Lt. Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (rtd), to victims of bandits and terrorist attacks in Benue and Plateau states to defend themselves against marauding gunmen invading their communities.
However, Governor Namadi believes that self-defence would exacerbate the ravaging security challenges in the country. According to him, self-defence is a recipe for anarchy because Nigeria is not yet ripe for it. He urges the government to explore alternative conflict resolution that does not require people to take up arms to protect themselves.
Aligning with this position, Isaac Olawale Albert, a Nigerian Professor of African History, Peace, and Conflict Studies, opines that the calls for self-defence amount to an invitation for chaos.
Despite the divergent views expressed on the issue of self-defence, there is, however, a consensus that present-day Nigeria is under serious internal armed attacks. The various strategies deployed by the government at different times to curtail insurgency, banditry, kidnapping, and other violent crimes have consistently failed to tackle these security problems frontally. In the absence of adequate state security, what should the citizens do?
Nigerians are entitled to a safe country, and it is the primary responsibility of the government to ensure the safety of all. This includes protecting citizens from external threats, ensuring internal order, and addressing the root causes of conflict. Regrettably, successive Nigerian governments have fallen short of this obligation. Consequently, the people are left with the lone option of devising their safety measures – after all, security is personal.
Whilst the argument against self-defence in Nigeria has its merits, the salient question is whether self-defence is legally permissible under Nigerian laws. In recognition of the sanctity of human life, the 1999 Constitution grants every Nigerian citizen the right to use reasonable force to protect and defend himself/herself or their property from immediate or imminent danger or unlawful violence. Admittedly, this does not explicitly permit the possession of firearms by civilians; nevertheless, it can be inferred that self-defence includes the right to use lethal force, including licensed firearms, in deserving circumstances.
Most of the anti-self-defence proponents appeared to be conflating self-defence with self-help. Importantly, Nigerian laws frown at self-help as it refers to taking the law into one’s own hands without following due process. On the other hand, self-defence connotes being aware of potential dangers and taking precautions to protect oneself from them. It is a shield and not a sword, which is often used to respond, prevent, or stop an instant or imminent danger to one’s life or property. Simply put, self-defence means taking individual responsibility for one’s safety and well-being as allowed by law.
The impact of government’s response to the ongoing terrorism, banditry, pogrom, and kidnapping in Northern Nigeria and elsewhere is low and disheartening. Despite the yearly humongous budgetary security allocations, the crisis is ballooning rather than abating. The military campaign looks more like racketeering than a real fight – the numerous successful ambushes of military personnel and attacks on military bases strongly suggest that there are insurgents or bandit sympathisers within the military and, by extension, the government.
Regrettably, the alternative solutions being proposed by Governor Namadi have been repeatedly tried and tested but have failed woefully. For instance, the countless negotiations and dialogue between the government officials and terrorists/bandits did not broker peace. Similarly, ‘Operation Safe Corridor’ only paved the leeway for (purported repentant) criminals to escape criminal liability rather than dissuade them from further perpetrating acts of terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, and other violent crimes. Sadly, Nigeria has become a fertile ground for criminality; this explains why dislodged militias from neighbouring countries relocate to Nigeria.
Again, considering the wanton deaths and destruction of properties resulting from the surging insecurity, is it prudent for Nigerians to be allowed to defend themselves, even if it involves the use of firearms? Do the people stand any real chance against the weaponry might of violent criminals as posed by Prof. Albert? Indubitably, the concerns that the free use of firearms by civilians could spike extra-judicial killings, increase gun violence, and pose a serious threat to public safety are legitimate.
Nonetheless, what other choice do people, who over the decades have suffered untold human carnage, whose lives are under constant threat, some of whom have been displaced from their ancestral homes, most of whom have lost their source of livelihood, and who lack adequate government security, have? Should they stand by until they are exterminated by murderous felons?
The fact that these criminals usually engage in guerrilla warfare and attack only when their victims are off guard implies they are averse to stiff resistance. Unarguably, the invaders disturbing the peace in the North-Central, particularly Benue and Plateau States, are having a field day because of the lack of a defensive counterattack.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution grants Americans the right of self-defence, and also permits Americans of legal age to keep and bear arms. Many states in the U.S. expanded these rights by shielding any resident who caused bodily harm or killed another person in the course of self-defence from criminal prosecution, even when they could have easily and safely retreated. Further, despite the proliferation of firearms in the U.S., it has a lower violent crime rate compared to Nigeria.
Indeed, it would be counterproductive to advocate free (civilian) arms-bearing for a country with 130 million multidimensionally poor people, 20 million out-of-school children, a high unemployment rate, unprecedented economic hardship, and poor social security, because the people could turn their weapons on one another at the slightest provocation.
Consequently, the government must address the underlying factors propelling the current large-scale security challenges. Also, it must demonstrate the political will to curb insurgency and banditry by exposing and prosecuting the masterminds and neutralising the activities of the criminals via continuous, drastic military operations. No responsible country tolerates such atrocities like Nigeria.
Until the Nigerian government proves that it is capable of protecting Nigerians equally, individuals and communities have no choice but to exercise a duty of personal and collective self-defence. The people must fiercely and fearlessly protect and defend themselves within the fullest extent of the law.
