Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.) further defines the phrase to mean: “A killing carried out by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process.” Cambridge Dictionary defines it as: “Done without legal authority; not decided by a court of law.”
The phrase “jungle justice” is derived from the phrase “jungle law.” “Jungle” is defined by Oxford Dictionary to mean: “A situation or place of brutal lawlessness where the strongest survive or dominate.” Cambridge Dictionary defines “jungle law” to mean: “A situation in which people do whatever they want, ignoring laws or rules, and the strongest people gain an advantage over others.” Merriam-Webster defines “law of the jungle” to mean: “A code of survival in which the strongest, most ruthless, or most cunning survive.”
From the definitions above, it is safe to say that jungle justice is a punishment imposed outside the law; punishment carried out by individuals or mobs without due process of the law.
The few similarities between extrajudicial killing and jungle justice can thus far be seen from the above definitions of the two phrases. These include: punishment without lawful process—either killing or otherwise—and a state of brutality without regard for legal authority. The only difference between the two is that the former is carried out by governmental authorities without legal authority, whereas the latter is done by individuals or mobs without legal authority.
Extra-judicial killings represent one of the gravest assaults on the rule of law and the sanctity of human life. When examined within the socio-legal context of many developing societies, including Nigeria, they form a disturbing “twin pillar” alongside jungle justice: two unlawful practices that thrive where state institutions fail or are perceived to have failed.
At its core, an extra-judicial killing is the deliberate taking of life by state actors or their agents without judicial sanction. It bypasses due process, undermines constitutional guarantees, and erodes public confidence in law enforcement. In contrast, jungle justice—often carried out by mobs—is a form of collective vigilantism where suspected offenders are summarily punished, frequently through brutal violence. Though they differ in actors, both phenomena are united by a common thread: the abandonment of legal procedure.
My Lord, Justice Onnoghen (CJN, retired), on the issue of extrajudicial killing, had this to say in the case of Adegboyega Ibikunle v. The State (2007) 1 SCNJ 207:
I am compelled by the facts and circumstances of this case coupled with the now notorious extra judicial killings of innocent people by some members of the Nigeria Police, to condemn the inability of some members of the Police Force to realise that the foundation of the police institution is preservation of life and property.
My Lord in this case went further to admonish that “there is the urgent need to revisit the criteria used in recruitment of policemen.”
The Nigeria Police Force must come to the realisation that their duty as policemen is to protect the people; but from what we have been seeing, the same men meant to protect the lives of the people have no regard for the sanctity of human life.
The legal framework in Nigeria is unequivocal on the right to life. Section 33 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life except in execution of a court sentence or in strictly defined circumstances permitted by law. Extra-judicial killings, therefore, are not merely administrative excesses; they are constitutional violations.
Despite this clarity, reports of unlawful killings by security agencies persist—like the recent killing of 28-year-old Mene Ogidi in Effurun, Delta State, by ASP Nuhu Usman and four other officers in broad daylight. Whether a killing arises from excessive use of force, custodial death, or summary execution under the guise of crime control, such acts signal a breakdown of accountability. When citizens observe state actors acting outside the law, it legitimises similar lawlessness among the populace. This is where the “twin pillar” analogy becomes most evident: extra-judicial killings by authorities indirectly fuel jungle justice by normalising violence as a substitute for justice.
Jungle justice, on the other hand, is often driven by frustration: delayed trials, perceived corruption, and a lack of trust in the criminal justice system. Communities, feeling abandoned, resort to self-help. However, this is a dangerous path. Innocent individuals are frequently victims, mistaken identity is common, and there is no avenue for redress. It is justice stripped of fairness, evidence, and proportionality.
The interplay between these two forms of unlawful killing creates a vicious cycle. State violence breeds public violence, and public violence, in turn, provides justification—however flawed—for harsher state responses. The result is a gradual descent into lawlessness, where neither the state nor the citizen respects legal boundaries.
Addressing this dual menace requires a multi-faceted approach. First, there must be strict accountability mechanisms for security agencies. Independent investigations, prosecution of offenders, and transparent disciplinary processes are essential. Second, judicial reforms must ensure timely and fair trials to restore public confidence. Third, civic education is crucial; citizens must understand that justice, no matter how delayed, cannot be replaced by mob action.
Ultimately, the strength of any legal system lies not in its written laws but in their faithful enforcement. Extra-judicial killings and jungle justice are symptoms of deeper institutional failures. Eliminating them demands a recommitment to the rule of law, where every life is valued and every accused person is entitled to due process.
A society that tolerates either risks losing both justice and humanity.
Adedayo Samuel Adesheila Esq, ACArb, LLM
Head of Chambers of Paschal Ugbome & Co.
0 Comments