Mob Justice & The Law: Why Violence Is Never Legal
A Growing Culture of Public Punishment
ACROSS many Nigerian communities, a troubling pattern has become increasingly visible: individuals accused of theft, infidelity, or other alleged misconduct are publicly beaten, stripped naked, paraded through streets, filmed, and shamed on social media. These actions are often justified as spontaneous community justice or moral correction. However, under Nigerian law, such acts are unequivocally criminal, regardless of the alleged offence that triggered them.
This phenomenon, commonly referred to as “jungle justice,” reflects a dangerous misunderstanding of how the law functions and where the limits of citizen authority lie.
Who Has the Right to Punish?
In every constitutional democracy, including Nigeria, the authority to punish wrongdoing rests exclusively with the state. This power is exercised through lawful institutions such as the police, courts, and correctional services. No individual, group, or community possesses the legal right to punish another person.
Even where an allegation is true, private citizens are restricted to reporting the matter and, at most, effecting a lawful citizen’s arrest under strict conditions. Once violence, humiliation, or punishment is inflicted, the act ceases to be civic responsibility and becomes criminal conduct.
Assault, Degrading Treatment, and Multiple Offences
Beating a person in public constitutes assault under criminal law. Forcibly undressing an individual is not only assault but also inhuman and degrading treatment, prohibited under the Nigerian Constitution and international human rights instruments to which Nigeria is a signatory.
Parading an accused person through public spaces, recording their humiliation, and sharing the footage online further compounds the offences. These acts may amount to violations of privacy, cyberstalking, unlawful publication, and conspiracy, depending on the circumstances.
Importantly, the law does not excuse violence because it was provoked by alleged wrongdoing.
Presumption of Innocence and Due Process
One of the most misunderstood principles in law is the presumption of innocence. Until a competent court establishes guilt, an accused person remains legally innocent. Public opinion, community anger, or viral videos do not replace judicial determination.
When a mob attacks an accused person, the law shifts its focus. The central legal question becomes not what the accused allegedly did, but who committed acts of violence, humiliation, and unlawful punishment.
In many cases, mob participants end up committing offences more serious than the original allegation.
“Everyone Was There” Is Not a Defence
Crowd participation does not erase individual responsibility. The law recognises personal accountability, even in mob settings. Those who physically assaulted the victim, encouraged the violence, filmed the incident, or distributed recordings may all be subject to investigation.
Claims such as “we were angry,” “the person deserved it,” or “everyone joined in” carry no legal weight. Emotional outrage does not override constitutional protections or criminal statutes.
The Social Cost of Jungle Justice
Contrary to popular belief, public punishment does not deter crime. Instead, it spreads fear, normalises violence, and erodes trust in legal institutions. It also exposes ordinary citizens to criminal liability, often with long-term consequences.
When communities replace law with violence, they undermine their own security and legitimacy.
The Lawful Alternative
The lawful response to suspected wrongdoing is reporting, arrest, investigation, and trial. Anything beyond that crosses the line into criminality. Once violence begins, the law no longer examines the original accusation; it examines the actions of those who took the law into their own hands.
