Self-defence means that the accused person did the act while in the process of defending himself, but with no intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The defence of Self-Defence is provided in Section 32((3) and (4) of the Criminal Code Act. JOHN V. STATE (2013) ALL FWLR (PT-666)505. DAVID V. C.O.P (2018) HELAR; AGU V. THE STATE (2018) HELAR
When a person is unlawfully assaulted, and he did not provoked the assault, it is lawful for him to use such force to the assailant as is reasonably necessary to make effectual defence against the assault provided that the force used is not such that is likely to cause death or grievous harm. However, even where he provoked the assault but not by an act of such force as could cause death or serious bodily harm, and he is assaulted with an act of such force as can be reasonably regarded with apprehension as of being capable to lead to death or grievous harm, and he uses force by way of defence believing, on reasonable ground, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself or the person defended from death or grievous harm, it is lawful for him to use any such force to the assailant as is necessary for defence, even though such force may cause death or grievous harm. SECTION 286 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE ACT CAP C38 LFN 2004. AFUAPE V THE STATE (2020) HELAR; DAVID V. C.O.P (2018) HELAR
No. Though a complete defence, the defendant seeking to use and rely on self-defence must show that his life was so much endangered by the act of the deceased that the only option left for him to save his own life was to kill the deceased. What this means, is that the force used in self-defence must be commensurate with the force used in the attack being defended. NWEDE V. STATE (1985) 12 SC 32; AFOSI V. STATE 2012 ALL FWLR (Pt. 612) 1723. DAVID V. C.O.P (2018) HELAR
Yes, he would still be availed under self-defence when the person he provoked assaults him with such violence as to cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm. In which case, his secondary act of use of force would be one done in self defence. However, this defence would not be available to him if the act he first did was so done with such force as would itself be capable of causing death or grievous bodily harm to the other person. SEE SECTION 287 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE CAP C 38 LFN 2004. AFUAPE V THE STATE (2020) HELAR
Yes. In any case where it is equally lawful for a person to use force in any degree for the purpose of defending himself against an assault, it will be lawful for another person acting in good faith in his aid to use a like degree of force for the purpose of defending such first mentioned person. SEE SECTION 288 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE ACT CAP C 38 LFN 2008. AFUAPE V THE STATE (2020) HELAR; DAVID V. C.O.P (2018) HELAR
The standard of proof required by the prosecution in the proof of a criminal charge must be beyond reasonable doubt. Edokun v. The State (2017) All FWLR (Pt. 875) 2125 at p. 2172 paras. A-B; Ogundiyan v. State (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 181) 519; Onuoha v. State (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 101) 23; State v. Emine (1992). But the required standard in the case of the accused person needing to prove his innocence, for example, seeking cover under the self-defence or insane delusion, is that of balance of probability. ALIYU V. THE STATE (2019) HELAR; AFUAPE V THE STATE (2020) HELAR