The Editor Zambia
The recent arrest of Garry Nkombo has reignited public debate on the legal doctrine of self-defence and the extent to which it can shield an individual from criminal liability.
However, one principle remains firmly established in criminal jurisprudence: self-defence is not an automatic excuse for the commission of a criminal act. Rather, it is a legal defence that must be tested and proven before a competent court of law. 
Many members of the public often misunderstand the concept of self-defence, assuming that a person who claims to have acted in protection of themselves or their property cannot be arrested or prosecuted. That is not how the law operates.
Under common law principles, which continue to influence Zambia’s criminal justice system, self-defence is a defence raised in response to a criminal charge. It is not a blanket immunity from arrest. Law enforcement agencies are duty-bound to investigate alleged offences where there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
A simple illustration demonstrates the point. Suppose an intruder unlawfully breaks into a person’s home and attempts to launch a violent attack. The homeowner responds with force and, in the process, breaks the intruder’s leg. On the face of it, a serious injury has been inflicted upon another person. The police may therefore investigate the circumstances and, where appropriate, institute criminal proceedings.
The crucial question would then be whether the force used was reasonable, necessary, and proportionate to the threat faced at the time. Those are matters that ultimately fall within the jurisdiction of the courts.
It is during legal proceedings that an accused person would have the opportunity to present evidence showing that the actions complained of were undertaken solely to repel an unlawful attack and to preserve life or prevent serious harm. If the court is satisfied that the force used was justified, the accused may be acquitted.
In other situations, where the force employed is deemed excessive, the claim of self-defence may still reduce the gravity of the offence or influence the sentence imposed.
Legal experts have long emphasised that self-defence is fundamentally a shield rather than a sword. The law permits individuals to protect themselves when confronted with imminent danger, but it does not authorise retaliation, revenge, or the use of disproportionate force.
The distinction is important. A person may genuinely believe that they were acting to protect themselves, yet the court must still examine whether that belief was reasonable and whether the response was commensurate with the threat. These are factual and legal questions that cannot be conclusively determined at the point of arrest.
Consequently, public discourse surrounding high-profile arrests should be guided by an appreciation of due process. An arrest does not amount to a conviction, just as a claim of self-defence does not automatically extinguish criminal responsibility. The criminal justice system exists precisely to evaluate such claims through evidence, legal argument, and judicial scrutiny.
In every democratic society governed by the rule of law, the courtroom not public opinion is the proper forum for determining whether an act was criminal, justified, or excusable under the law.
