The defence of provocation occupies a controversial position within Nigerian criminal law because it seeks to reconcile two competing principles: individual responsibility for unlawful violence and recognition of the diminished culpability that may arise from sudden and grave emotional disturbance. This article critically examines provocation as a partial defence to criminal liability in Nigeria, with particular attention to homicide, the Criminal Code and Penal Code frameworks, judicial interpretation, the burden of proof, and contemporary concerns regarding proportionality, gender justice and victim protection. The study adopts a doctrinal and analytical methodology, drawing on relevant legislation, reported judicial decisions, scholarly literature and comparative legal developments. The analysis demonstrates that provocation does not ordinarily extinguish criminal responsibility; rather, where its constituent requirements are established, it may reduce murder to manslaughter or otherwise mitigate liability. The principal requirements include the existence of legally sufficient provocation, actual loss of self-control, temporal proximity between the provocative conduct and the defendant’s response, and an objectively reasonable reaction. However, the application of these requirements remains problematic because concepts such as the “reasonable person,” suddenness and proportionality may be difficult to apply consistently across Nigeria’s diverse social and cultural contexts. Recent scholarship further raises concerns about the potential use of provocation in cases involving domestic and gender-based violence. The article argues for a clearer, more context-sensitive and gender-responsive approach that preserves the mitigating rationale of the doctrine while preventing it from becoming a mechanism for excusing unjustified violence.