Please Tinubu, why can’t we all own rifles?, By Ugoji Egbujo

Nigeria's stringent firearm laws, primarily governed by the Firearms Act, are under increasing scrutiny amidst escalating insecurity and a perceived failure of state protection. This article examines the legal framework surrounding firearm ownership, contrasting the state's strict control over weapons with the constitutional right to self-defence enshrined in Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution. It delves into the ongoing debate among legal professionals and policymakers regarding the potential liberalisation of firearm access for law-abiding citizens, weighing the arguments for enhanced personal security against the risks of increased violence and the challenges of regulatory enforcement in a country already grappling with a proliferation of illicit arms.

The pervasive insecurity across Nigeria, marked by banditry, kidnapping, and communal violence, has ignited a fervent debate about the efficacy of the state's monopoly on force and the right of citizens to self-protection. A recent commentary in Premium Times Nigeria, titled “Please Tinubu, why can’t we all own rifles?”, encapsulates the growing frustration among many Nigerians who feel abandoned by an overstretched and often ineffective security apparatus. This sentiment fuels calls for a re-evaluation of the country's restrictive firearm laws, suggesting that empowering law-abiding citizens with the means to defend themselves could be a necessary response to the prevailing threats.

This article aims to critically analyse the legal landscape governing firearm ownership in Nigeria, exploring the provisions of the Firearms Act and its interplay with the constitutional right to life and self-defence. It will delve into the arguments for and against liberalising access to firearms, considering the potential implications for public safety, the rule of law, and the state's fundamental duty to protect its citizens. Ultimately, the discussion seeks to provide legal professionals with a comprehensive understanding of this complex and emotionally charged issue, highlighting the legal challenges and policy considerations at play.

The legal framework for firearm ownership in Nigeria is primarily established by the Firearms Act, Cap F28 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (originally enacted in 1959 and revised in 1990). This Act imposes strict controls on the possession, manufacture, sale, and transfer of firearms and ammunition. It categorises firearms into 'prohibited firearms' (such as artillery, machine guns, military rifles, revolvers, and pistols), 'personal firearms' (like shotguns and sporting rifles), and 'muzzle-loading firearms'.

Under the Act, no person is permitted to possess or control any firearm or ammunition without a valid licence or permit. For prohibited firearms, a licence must be granted by the President, acting in his discretion, upon the recommendation of the Inspector-General of Police. For personal firearms, the Inspector-General of Police or an authorised officer grants the licence, subject to principles decided by the National Council of Ministers. Licences are not granted as of right, and authorities can refuse applications without providing reasons. Furthermore, the Act disqualifies individuals under 17 years of age, those of unsound mind, persons with defective eyesight, or those with intemperate habits, or who have been convicted of a violent offence within the preceding five years, from obtaining a licence.

The strict regulatory regime of the Firearms Act is underscored by its enforcement provisions, which treat unlawful possession of firearms as a strict liability offence. This means that the prosecution is not required to prove criminal intent (mens rea); merely being found in possession of an unlicensed firearm is sufficient for conviction. The Supreme Court has affirmed this position in cases such as *Kelly v State (2022) LPELR-57325(SC)* and *Bille v. State (2016) CLR 7(J) (SC)*, where it was held that the gravamen of the offence is possession, and the burden is on the accused to prove lawful possession by producing a valid licence.

However, this strict control exists in tension with the fundamental right to life enshrined in Section 33(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). Section 33(2)(a) provides an exception, stating that a person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of life in contravention of the section if death results from the use of force reasonably necessary for the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the defence of property. This constitutional right to self-defence is further elaborated in the Criminal Code Act (Sections 286-293) and the Penal Code Act (Sections 59-67), which permit the use of reasonable and proportionate force to repel an imminent threat of harm. Judicial interpretations, such as in *Okonkwo v State*, have upheld the plea of self-defence where there was a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm.

The core contradiction lies in the perceived disconnect between the state's constitutional duty to protect lives and property, and its apparent inability to do so effectively, while simultaneously restricting citizens' means of self-defence. Critics argue that the current Firearms Act, with its stringent prohibitions and discretionary licensing, does not adequately empower citizens to protect themselves when security agencies fall short. This has led to growing calls for legislative reform, with some lawmakers, such as Senator Ned Nwoko, proposing bills to amend the Firearms Act to allow responsible civilians to own firearms for self-defence, subject to rigorous vetting and training.

Conversely, strong arguments persist against liberalising firearm ownership. Opponents highlight Nigeria's porous borders, the existing proliferation of illicit small arms (estimated at 70% of West Africa's illegal weapons), weak regulatory capacity, and the potential for increased accidental shootings, domestic violence, and escalation of political and communal conflicts. There is concern that widespread gun ownership could exacerbate insecurity rather than mitigate it, potentially leading to a 'Wild West' scenario. The 2022 Firearms Act (Amendment) Bill (SB. 889) currently before the Senate, for instance, aims to *tighten* firearms control, reflecting a different policy direction focused on curtailing illegal arms rather than expanding legal access.

The debate surrounding civilian firearm ownership in Nigeria presents a profound legal and policy dilemma, balancing the state's sovereign duty to maintain public order with the individual's inherent right to self-preservation. While the Firearms Act maintains a highly restrictive stance, the constitutional right to self-defence, as interpreted by criminal codes and judicial precedents, acknowledges the legitimacy of using reasonable force to protect life and property. The current security challenges have undeniably amplified calls for a re-evaluation of the existing legal framework, prompting legislative proposals for a more liberal, albeit regulated, approach to civilian firearm access.

For legal practitioners, advising clients on matters of self-defence requires a nuanced understanding of the proportionality and reasonableness tests under the Criminal and Penal Codes, irrespective of firearm ownership. Any move towards liberalising firearm ownership would necessitate a robust and transparent regulatory framework, including stringent background checks, mandatory training, and effective enforcement mechanisms, to prevent the exacerbation of violence. Without addressing the underlying issues of institutional weakness, corruption, and the pervasive illicit arms trade, simply arming citizens risks creating more problems than it solves. The ongoing legislative discussions signal a critical juncture for Nigeria's security policy, and legal professionals must remain abreast of these developments to navigate the evolving landscape of rights and responsibilities concerning self-defence and firearm possession.