A married woman, visibly intoxicated, approaches a married man in a bar and begins flirting. The man clearly declines and even points out his wife nearby.
Undeterred, the woman escalates the situation by confronting the wife directly taunting her and insinuating an affair.
The wife, provoked and angered, reacts physically and assaults the woman. The instigator then reports the incident to the police.
At first glance, the answer may seem obvious. But the law rarely deals in absolutes.
Under Nigerian criminal law, assault or battery is defined by the unlawful application of force. On the surface, the wife’s action physically attacking the woman meets this definition.
Provocation does not justify assault it only mitigates it.
In other words, the fact that the victim “started it” does not automatically absolve the person who responded with violence.
Provocation operates as a partial defence, not a complete one.
If successfully established, it may:
* Reduce the severity of liability
* Influence sentencing
* Shift how the court interprets the defendant’s state of mind
In this scenario, the taunts and threats could qualify as provocation but the physical assault may still be considered disproportionate.
While the instigating party may still legally claim assault, their conduct is far from irrelevant. In criminal proceedings, it may affect how harshly the offender is treated.
You may provoke but once the response becomes physical, the law intervenes.
So yes, the instigator in this scenario can still claim assault.
But their own conduct will significantly shape how justice is ultimately applied.
