By Chux-Nwachukwu Chisom Bianca
There is something deeply disturbing about the speed with which an accusation can become a death sentence in Nigeria.
Someone shouts, “Thief!” A crowd gathers. Questions are replaced by assumptions. Evidence becomes irrelevant. The accused is surrounded, beaten, humiliated and, in some cases, killed. Within minutes, a person who may have committed an offence—or may simply have been wrongly accused—can lose the most fundamental right of all: the right to life.
This is jungle justice.
It is often presented as the spontaneous response of an angry community to crime. But beneath that description lies something far more dangerous: the deliberate abandonment of the rule of law in favour of mob rule.
The fundamental question is therefore not merely whether the person being attacked committed a crime. The question is: Who gave the crowd the authority to investigate, prosecute, convict and sentence another human being?
The answer is simple: no one did.
An Accusation Is Not a Conviction
Nigeria is a constitutional democracy governed by laws and institutions. The 1999 Constitution does not make guilt a matter to be determined by the loudest voice in a crowd.
Section 36(5) of the Constitution establishes one of the most important principles of criminal justice: a person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty. Section 36 also guarantees the right to a fair hearing.
These principles are not technicalities designed to protect criminals. They are safeguards designed to protect everyone.
Today, the person being accused may be a stranger. Tomorrow, it could be a friend, sibling, neighbour—or even an innocent person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The distinction between accusation and conviction is therefore fundamental.
Suspicion is not proof. Anger is not evidence. And a crowd is not a court.
When a mob punishes an accused person before guilt has been established, it effectively destroys the presumption of innocence and the right to fair hearing.
The Constitution Protects Life and Human Dignity
The illegality of jungle justice becomes even clearer when viewed through the Nigerian Constitution.
Section 33 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life. Section 34 protects the dignity of the human person and prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Section 35 protects personal liberty, while Section 36 protects the right to fair hearing.
These rights are interconnected.
A person cannot simply be stripped of his or her liberty, tortured, beaten or killed because a crowd believes that person deserves it.
The constitutional order deliberately places the power to determine criminal guilt and impose punishment within a legal framework. That framework exists precisely because human beings are capable of anger, prejudice, mistakes and collective irrationality.
A mob does not acquire the powers of the police merely because it is larger than the police. It does not become a court because everyone present agrees on someone’s guilt.
The Constitution does not recognise trial by crowd.
But What If the Person Really Is a Criminal?
This is perhaps the most common defence of jungle justice: “But what if he really stole?” Or, “What if she really committed the crime?”
Even then, the answer remains the same. If a person has committed a crime, that person should be arrested, investigated, charged and prosecuted in accordance with the law. The fact that someone is guilty does not make every form of punishment lawful.
This distinction is crucial because the existence of a crime does not create a licence for private citizens to determine and administer punishment. The Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 provides a framework for the lawful administration of criminal proceedings and contains safeguards concerning the treatment of suspects and defendants. The criminal justice system is designed to move from allegation and investigation to prosecution and, where guilt is established, punishment.
Jungle justice skips the entire process.
It turns:
Allegation → investigation → prosecution → trial → conviction → punishment
Into:
Allegation → anger → violence.
That is not justice. It is the destruction of due process.
The Law Does Not Permit the Crowd to Choose Its Punishment
There is another question that deserves to be asked whenever jungle justice is defended as “punishment”: If the law does not prescribe death as the punishment for an ordinary offence such as stealing a phone or a loaf of bread, by what authority does a mob impose death for it?
Stealing is an offence. It can and should attract lawful consequences. But the punishment for an offence is determined by law, not by the anger of the victim, the neighbourhood or a crowd. Imagine a person stealing a loaf of bread because they are hungry, or stealing a mobile phone. The appropriate response is not to decide whether the person “deserves to die.” The appropriate response is to report the offence and allow the criminal justice system to determine the appropriate legal consequence.
Even where an offender is eventually convicted, punishment remains subject to the law. This is one of the fundamental differences between justice and revenge.
Justice asks: “What offence was committed, what does the law provide, and what punishment is legally appropriate?”
Revenge asks: “How angry are we, and how badly do we want this person to suffer?”
A society governed by law must choose the first.
When Criminals Become the Judges of Other Criminals
There is also an uncomfortable hypocrisy surrounding jungle justice in Nigeria that deserves attention.
Nigeria has experienced a significant problem with internet fraud and other forms of financial crime. Some individuals who participate in these activities are themselves involved in criminal conduct, yet there are instances in which people involved in criminal activity participate in condemning, exposing or violently attacking other alleged criminals.
This creates an obvious contradiction. How can a person who knowingly engages in unlawful conduct appoint himself or herself as the final authority on who deserves to die for committing another offence?
More importantly, this criticism must be applied consistently. We cannot condemn jungle justice only when the victim is someone we dislike.
The principle should be universal: A thief does not become a judge simply because he catches another thief.
And there is an important legal caution here. A person accused of internet fraud is still entitled to the presumption of innocence until convicted. We must not reproduce the same culture of instant judgment that we are condemning.
The issue is therefore not whether “Yahoo boys” are uniquely responsible for jungle justice. They are not. The issue is the broader culture of selective morality: people condemning certain crimes while excusing, participating in or ignoring other forms of criminality.
If stealing is wrong, it is wrong.
Fraud is wrong.
Robbery is wrong.
Assault is wrong.
Killing an alleged thief is also wrong.
The criminality of one person does not legalise the criminality of another.
Jungle Justice Can Itself Become a Crime
There is an especially troubling irony in mob violence: people who claim to be punishing criminals may themselves become perpetrators of serious crimes.
Under Nigerian criminal law, unlawful violence, assault and homicide are criminal offences. Where mob violence results in death, those responsible may face criminal liability depending on the facts, their individual acts, intention and the evidence available.
The Criminal Code, applicable in the southern states, contains provisions dealing with assault and unlawful homicide, including murder and manslaughter. Comparable criminal offences are provided for under the Penal Code applicable in much of northern Nigeria.
Therefore, a person cannot escape criminal responsibility simply by saying, “I was helping punish a thief.” The law does not transform a crowd into a lawful execution squad.
And there is another disturbing feature of mob violence: responsibility can become psychologically diluted. One person throws a stone. Another kicks the victim. Someone else pours petrol. Another lights the match. Afterwards, everyone says, “It was the crowd.” But a crowd is made up of individuals. The anonymity of a mob does not automatically erase individual responsibility.
Why Do People Resort to Jungle Justice?
If jungle justice is so clearly dangerous and unlawful, why does it continue?
The answer cannot simply be that Nigerians are violent or lawless. There are deeper institutional and social factors. Many Nigerians have legitimate concerns about the criminal justice system. There are complaints about police inefficiency, delayed investigations, prolonged trials, corruption, inadequate resources and the fear that suspects may eventually escape justice.
When people repeatedly see criminals appear to evade punishment, they may begin to believe that the formal justice system cannot protect them. This creates a dangerous psychological transition: “The law will not help us” becomes “We must help ourselves.” And eventually, “helping ourselves” becomes taking the law into our own hands.
But this is precisely where society must draw the line. A weak justice system is a reason to strengthen the justice system, not to abolish it on the streets. A broken system may explain why people lose faith in the law. It does not give them the legal authority to replace the law.
The Role of Misinformation and Social Media
Modern technology has also made the problem more dangerous.
An accusation can spread across WhatsApp groups, Facebook pages, TikTok videos and other social platforms within minutes. A person can be labelled a thief, kidnapper, fraudster or murderer before the facts are established.
Once a person’s photograph or video circulates with an accusation attached to it, public opinion can become almost impossible to reverse—even if the accusation turns out to be false.
This is particularly dangerous because mob violence thrives on certainty. A crowd does not need evidence when everyone believes everyone else already has the evidence.
That is why responsible citizens must learn to pause before forwarding allegations, identifying suspects publicly or encouraging people to “deal with” an alleged criminal. The few seconds it takes to verify information may be the difference between reporting a crime and facilitating a murder.
How Do We Combat Jungle Justice?
Ending jungle justice requires more than telling citizens to “stop.” It requires addressing the conditions that allow it to flourish.
Restore confidence in the justice system
Law enforcement agencies must respond promptly and professionally to reports of crime. Investigations must be properly conducted, and cases must move through the courts without unnecessary delays.
When citizens believe that reporting a crime will actually produce a meaningful response, the temptation to seek private revenge decreases.
Hold perpetrators of mob violence accountable
The perpetrators of jungle justice should not be treated as heroes or community defenders. Where evidence establishes individual criminal responsibility, those involved should be investigated and prosecuted.
Failure to prosecute mob violence sends a dangerous message: that killing someone in a crowd is somehow less serious than killing someone alone. It is not.
Educate citizens about their legal rights and responsibilities
Citizens should understand that they have a role in combating crime—but that role does not include deciding guilt or administering punishment.
People can report crimes. They can provide evidence. They can cooperate with investigators. In circumstances permitted by law, citizens may assist in apprehending suspects.
But apprehending a suspect is not the same thing as punishing a suspect. That distinction must become part of public consciousness.
Fight misinformation
Social media users must resist the urge to forward unverified accusations. Before sharing a person’s photograph with the caption “This is a thief,” ask:
Has this person actually been convicted? If the answer is no, then presenting an accusation as fact can contribute to the very culture of mob justice we claim to oppose.
5. Address the culture of selective morality
We must stop treating crime as something that becomes acceptable depending on who commits it. The person who commits fraud cannot claim moral superiority over the person who steals a phone. The person who steals cannot claim moral superiority over the person who commits fraud. And neither can claim the right to kill someone else.
A society governed by law cannot operate on the principle that “my crime is understandable, but yours deserves death.”
Justice Must Be More Than Punishment
Perhaps the most dangerous misconception about justice is that justice simply means making someone suffer for what they have done.
It does not.
Justice requires evidence.
Justice requires a fair hearing.
Justice requires an impartial process.
Justice requires that the punishment imposed is one recognised and authorised by law.
And above all, justice requires that the process itself respects human dignity.
Jungle justice removes all of these safeguards.
It can kill an innocent person.
It can permanently injure a guilty person before a court has determined the appropriate punishment.
It can destroy evidence, encourage false accusations and create further violence.
Most importantly, it teaches society that violence is an acceptable response to wrongdoing.
That lesson is dangerous.
Because once we accept that a crowd can kill a person for stealing a phone, where do we draw the line?
What happens when the accusation is false?
What happens when the crowd gets the wrong person?
What happens when the next accusation is against someone we love?
The Rule of Law Must Remain the Rule
Nigeria does not need less justice. It needs more effective, accessible and trusted justice. The answer to crime cannot be to abandon the principles that distinguish a constitutional democracy from mob rule.
A person accused of a crime must be investigated. A suspect must be treated according to the law. An accused person must have the opportunity to defend themselves. A court must determine guilt. And where guilt is established, the punishment must be one authorised by law.
That process may sometimes be frustrating. It may sometimes be slow. It may sometimes fail. But the answer to a failing justice system cannot be to replace it with violence.
A mob is not a court. Anger is not evidence. An accusation is not a conviction. And punishment without due process is not justice. Jungle justice does not restore order. It replaces the rule of law with the rule of the crowd.
And if Nigeria is serious about building a society in which human life, dignity and justice are respected, then we must reject the idea that anyone—criminal or innocent—can be sentenced to death on the street simply because a crowd has decided that they deserve it.
Justice must be done through the law, not in spite of it.
CHUX-NWACHUKWU CHISOM BIANCA
In this article