The current debate on whether Nigerians, who are massacred by terrorists, have right to bear arms for self-defence, is somewhat needles, because there are enough provisions in our Constitution, the constitutions of advanced democracies, international conventions and charters that support the rights human beings have to self-defence.

Writing on the subject, James Wilson of Pennsylvania (1742-1798) – the only person who signed the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and served as a Supreme Court Justice – said, “Homicide is enjoined, when it is necessary for the defence of one’s person or house. It is the great natural law of self-preservation, which cannot be repealed, or superseded, or suspended by any human institution.”

An anonymous author, whose writing helped win the argument in favour of self-defence and rubbished state security agencies’ grandstanding attack against it, asked what happens “When seconds count, the police are only minutes or hours away, if they come at all.” 

For the avoidance of doubt, the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) clearly declares that citizens’ right to life is inalienable. Section 32(3) of the Criminal Code also provides that a person is not criminally liable for an act, when the act is reasonably necessary in order to resist actual and unlawful violence threatened to him or to another person in his presence.

In UWAEKWEGHINYA v. STATE (2005) 9 NWLR (PT. 930) 27, the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled that “Where a person kills another in defence of himself, such a killing is excused, and it does not amount to manslaughter under the Criminal Code or Culpable Homicide not punishable with death under the Penal Code. The defence of self-defence is a complete defence under the Criminal Code and the Penal Code and a successful defence of self-defence leads to the discharge and acquittal of the accused person.”

Moreover, Article 51 of the United Nations charter, arrived at during the San Francisco Conference in 1945, states that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

This debate now in Nigeria was triggered by the recent opinion shared by the Chief of Army Staff, Lt. General Taoreed Lagbaja, saying he does not support the idea of allowing Nigerians, who are under recurrent attacks by terrorists, to bear arms to defend themselves from the killers. “I do not support that. I think that is a call to anarchy,” Lagbaja was quoted as saying.

Expectedly, Lt. General Lagbaja had repeated the usual assurance Plateau people and other Nigerian citizens under terrorism attacks have been given over the years that the Nigerian Army can defend them, and therefore no need for self-defence. But in spite of these assurances, the killings in various parts of Nigeria have not stopped.

The Army Chief also said: “I have reeled out our plans for 2024 for Plateau State. The troops that we are deploying to Plateau are on their way to Plateau now.” If we may ask, for how long are the soldiers going to be stationed in those communities? If the people cannot be allowed to bear arms to defend themselves in the face of attacks by these terrorists, as Lagbaja insists, who will defend the people when Lagbaja’s troops eventually leave?