Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
June 3, 2020 8:55 am
"The accused person who used excessive force on his assailant cannot be heard to say that he had no safe or reasonable mode of retreat and that the taking of the life of one who was not even his attacker cannot justified.
Thus, as Ariwoola, JSC, restated in Afosi Vs. The State (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt.1371) 329 at 357 - 358;
"The four factual components of the plea of self-defence there are: (a) The accused person must, himself be free from fault or blame in bringing about the encounter. He must not be blame worthy, for if he was blame worthy then he cannot benefit from his own iniquity. (b) There must be present an impending peril to human life or of some grievous bodily harm. The existence of such peril must be real or an honest belief of an existing necessity. (c) There must be no state or reasonable mode of escape by retreat. (d) There must have been a necessity for taking of life. It must be borne in mind that the accused person was under a tense mental situation upon which, within a split moment, he must act. The state of his mind is material particularly that within such split-moment the accused has very limited options available to him. I should think the only accused person who can successfully plead self-defence is the one who acted at the spur of the moment to ward off the peril either to himself or to another person coming from the attacker killed. The law does not permit him to act in a manner excessive or disproportionate. The test is whether from the circumstances he acted in a manner reasonably necessary."
The Courts though recognize that the person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety of the exact measure of necessary defensive action: Archbold-Criminal pleading, Evidence and Practice, 40th ed, page 1239.
PER Y. B. NIMPAR, J.C.A IN INSPECTOR AKPAETTE MOSES VS THE STATE
suit no: CA/C/38C/2019
suit no: CA/C/38C/2019
Legalpedia Electronic Citation: 2020) Legalpedia (CA) 04151
