Shoot at Sight Order - Constitutional Anomaly
With an alarming spike in the activities of domestic terrorists in Nigeria (tagged bandits or herdsmen), President Buhari, sometime in March, 2021 issued a “shoot at sight†directive to the military against any person SEEN with an AK-47 assault rifle. This is coming on the heels of the statement of the Bauchi State governor (Bala Mohammed) that the herdsmen bear the assault weapons for self-defence.
The question this review seeks to answer is whether this order is lawful in any society and most importantly, a democratic society. A proper starting point is the Firearms Act Cap F28 LFN 2004. Generally, this piece of legislation clearly and unequivocally prohibits the owning or possession of assault weapons by persons in Nigeria as against the Second Amendment of the US Constitution that vests the right to bear arms on Americans. The fact that some persons in Nigeria thus bear such high-caliber weapons in the face of this legislation which has in fact been justified by an executive governor beats logic but is not a subject of this review.
Section 33 of the Nigerian Constitution guarantees the sanctity of the lives of citizens and essentially provides that no life can be taken except in accordance with the law. Elementary tort law derives a core principle from this human rights doctrine when it provides that deadly force can only be used in self-defence to a commensurate force or in the protection of another human being (not property) at the risk of deadly harm.
Section 36 of the same Constitution affords every person the right to be fairly heard by an impartial arbiter rather than exposing the lives of persons in Nigeria to the possibility of extrajudicial killing on a whim. Yes, there could be an innocent explanation for being in possession of an AK-47 rifle to wit: imagine a private citizen walking along a deserted path, seeing a discarded weapon and undertaking to present the weapon at the nearest police station. Under the president’s blanket order, such an innocent person could be killed before having an opportunity to explain the situation!
It is therefore safe to conclude that the president’s directive is constitutionally flawed and leaves room for serious abuse which can be akin to President Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs policy in the Philippines resulting in over 12,000 deaths. The proper order (which goes without saying) should have been and remains that anyone found with such weapons should be dealt with in accordance with existing law. It is now persons who may thereafter threaten to use or actually use deadly force against enforcement of the law that may thus lose their life as a result of such ill-advised rebellion.
Follow the author, AA Ibironke, Esq. on Twitter @SirMcAwesome247
