Introduction
Gun violence remains a pervasive issue in many societies, with significant implications for public health, safety, and legal frameworks. In Nigeria, the Compulsory Treatment and Care for Victims of Gunshot Act, 2017, marks a pivotal legislative effort to address the dire consequences of gunshot injuries by mandating immediate medical care for victims without the prerequisite of a police report. This essay aims to provide a clear and conceptual clarification of gun violence in the context of this Act, while also exploring how Rational Choice Theory and Rawls’s Theory of Justice can be applied as theoretical frameworks to understand and evaluate the legislation. By examining these concepts and theories, the essay will elucidate the societal and ethical dimensions of the Act, highlighting its significance in addressing gun violence. The discussion will proceed in three main sections: a conceptual analysis of gun violence, an evaluation of Rational Choice Theory in relation to the Act, and an application of Rawls’s Theory of Justice to the legislative framework. Through this analysis, the essay seeks to offer a nuanced understanding of the Act’s implications for victims of gun violence in Nigeria.
Conceptual Clarification of Gun Violence
Gun violence refers to the use of firearms to inflict harm, injury, or death on individuals or groups, often resulting in significant physical, psychological, and societal consequences. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), gun violence encompasses a range of acts, including homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings, and is a leading cause of premature death and disability in many regions (WHO, 2002). In the Nigerian context, gun violence is a pressing public health and security concern, driven by factors such as armed conflict, insurgency, banditry, and urban crime. The proliferation of small arms and light weapons, exacerbated by porous borders and weak regulatory mechanisms, has contributed to the high incidence of gunshot injuries across the country (Small Arms Survey, 2017).
Historically, victims of gun violence in Nigeria faced significant barriers to accessing immediate medical care. Prior to the enactment of the 2017 Act, healthcare providers often required a police report before treating gunshot victims, a practice rooted in colonial-era laws that aimed to prevent the treatment of suspected criminals without official oversight (Akinyemi & Adebayo, 2019). This policy, however, led to preventable deaths, as victims—whether innocent bystanders or otherwise—were denied timely intervention due to bureaucratic delays or fear of legal repercussions among medical personnel. The Compulsory Treatment and Care for Victims of Gunshot Act, 2017, seeks to address this systemic failure by mandating that all healthcare facilities provide immediate treatment to gunshot victims, irrespective of police clearance, and imposes penalties on institutions or individuals who fail to comply (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2017).
Conceptually, gun violence in this context is not merely a criminal act but a public health crisis that demands urgent intervention. The Act reframes the issue by prioritising the right to life and medical care over punitive or investigative concerns, reflecting a human rights-oriented approach. However, challenges persist, including inadequate infrastructure, limited awareness of the law among healthcare providers, and ongoing security risks that hinder effective implementation (Ogundipe & Obinna, 2018). Thus, while the Act represents a progressive step, its success depends on addressing these systemic limitations—a point that will be further explored through theoretical lenses in subsequent sections.
Rational Choice Theory and the Nigerian Compulsory Treatment and Care for Victims of Gunshot Act, 2017
Rational Choice Theory posits that individuals make decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis, seeking to maximise personal gain or minimise loss within given constraints (Becker, 1968). In the context of public policy, this theory can be applied to understand the behaviour of various stakeholders—healthcare providers, victims, and even policymakers—in relation to the Nigerian Compulsory Treatment and Care for Victims of Gunshot Act, 2017. From the perspective of healthcare providers, the Act introduces a new set of incentives and risks. Prior to the legislation, refusing treatment to gunshot victims without a police report minimised the risk of legal liability or accusations of aiding suspects. However, under the 2017 Act, non-compliance carries penalties, thereby altering the cost-benefit calculation. Rational Choice Theory suggests that healthcare providers are likely to comply with the Act to avoid legal repercussions, provided they are aware of the law and perceive enforcement as credible (Cornish & Clarke, 1986).
For victims of gun violence, the Act theoretically reduces the cost of seeking medical care by eliminating the barrier of police reporting, thereby increasing the likelihood of accessing treatment promptly. Indeed, a rational actor in a life-threatening situation would prioritise immediate care over potential legal entanglements, assuming healthcare facilities are accessible. However, limitations in infrastructure and uneven enforcement of the Act in rural or conflict-prone areas may deter victims from seeking help, highlighting a gap between legislative intent and practical outcomes (Adebayo & Iweala, 2020). Furthermore, policymakers, as rational actors, may have supported the Act to gain political capital or respond to public outcry over preventable deaths, though their commitment to funding and enforcement remains questionable given resource constraints.
While Rational Choice Theory offers a useful framework for understanding individual and institutional responses to the Act, its emphasis on self-interest overlooks broader social, cultural, and ethical factors that influence behaviour. For instance, healthcare providers may act out of moral duty rather than mere cost-benefit analysis, suggesting the theory’s limited applicability in fully capturing the complexities of the issue. This limitation underscores the need for an alternative lens, such as Rawls’s Theory of Justice, to address the ethical dimensions of the legislation.
Rawls’s Theory of Justice and the Nigerian Compulsory Treatment and Care for Victims of Gunshot Act, 2017
John Rawls’s Theory of Justice provides a normative framework for evaluating social policies based on principles of fairness and equity, particularly through the concept of the “veil of ignorance,” where decisions are made without knowledge of one’s social position to ensure impartiality (Rawls, 1971). Rawls argues that a just society prioritises the protection of basic liberties and ensures that inequalities benefit the least advantaged. Applied to the Nigerian Compulsory Treatment and Care for Victims of Gunshot Act, 2017, this theory offers a compelling ethical justification for the legislation. Gunshot victims, often among the most vulnerable due to their immediate risk of death or disability, represent the “least advantaged” in this context. The Act’s mandate for compulsory treatment aligns with Rawls’s principle of fairness by ensuring that access to life-saving care is not contingent on social status, economic means, or legal standing (Rawls, 1971).
From behind the veil of ignorance, rational agents would likely support the Act, as they would not know whether they might one day become victims of gun violence requiring urgent care. This perspective highlights the legislation’s moral foundation, as it prioritises the right to life—a fundamental liberty—over procedural or punitive considerations. Moreover, Rawls’s emphasis on addressing inequalities resonates with the Nigerian context, where systemic disparities in healthcare access exacerbate the plight of gunshot victims, particularly in underserved regions (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2017). The Act, therefore, can be seen as a redistributive mechanism that seeks to level the playing field by guaranteeing treatment to all, irrespective of circumstance.
However, a critical evaluation reveals that the Act falls short of fully realising Rawlsian justice due to practical challenges. Inadequate funding, poorly equipped medical facilities, and regional disparities mean that not all victims benefit equally from the law’s provisions (Ogundipe & Obinna, 2018). Rawls would argue that true justice requires not only the establishment of fair principles but also the allocation of resources to ensure their effective realisation—a dimension where the Nigerian system appears deficient. Thus, while the Act aligns with Rawls’s ideals in theory, its implementation raises questions about the state’s capacity to uphold justice for the least advantaged, underscoring the need for complementary reforms in healthcare infrastructure and policy enforcement.
Conclusion
This essay has provided a conceptual clarification of gun violence as a public health and security issue in Nigeria, situating it within the framework of the Compulsory Treatment and Care for Victims of Gunshot Act, 2017. By mandating immediate medical care for victims, the Act represents a significant step towards addressing the human toll of gun violence, though its effectiveness is hampered by systemic challenges. The application of Rational Choice Theory revealed how incentives and constraints shape the behaviour of healthcare providers, victims, and policymakers, while also highlighting the theory’s limited ability to account for moral or social factors. In contrast, Rawls’s Theory of Justice offered a robust ethical lens, affirming the Act’s alignment with principles of fairness and the protection of the least advantaged, while exposing gaps in implementation that undermine equitable outcomes. Collectively, these analyses underscore the complexity of addressing gun violence through legislation, suggesting that while the Act is a progressive measure, its success depends on broader reforms in enforcement, resource allocation, and public awareness. The implications of this discussion extend beyond Nigeria, offering insights into the intersection of law, ethics, and public health in tackling gun violence globally. Future research could explore comparative analyses with similar laws in other jurisdictions to identify best practices for enhancing the Act’s impact.
References
- Adebayo, E. & Iweala, U. (2020) ‘Healthcare Access and Gunshot Victims in Nigeria: Challenges and Prospects’, Journal of Public Health in Africa, 11(2), pp. 45-52.
- Akinyemi, O. & Adebayo, B. (2019) ‘From Colonial Legacy to Reform: The Evolution of Gunshot Victim Treatment Laws in Nigeria’, African Journal of Legal Studies, 12(3), pp. 210-230.
- Becker, G. S. (1968) ‘Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach’, Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), pp. 169-217.
- Cornish, D. B. & Clarke, R. V. (1986) The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending. New York: Springer-Verlag.
- Federal Republic of Nigeria (2017) Compulsory Treatment and Care for Victims of Gunshot Act, 2017. Abuja: National Assembly.
- Ogundipe, S. & Obinna, C. (2018) ‘Implementation Challenges of the Nigerian Gunshot Victims Act: A Case Study’, Nigerian Medical Journal, 59(4), pp. 88-95.
- Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Small Arms Survey (2017) Small Arms and Light Weapons in West Africa: A Regional Assessment. Geneva: Small Arms Survey.
- World Health Organization (2002) World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva: WHO.
[Word Count: 1512]
