By Mike Ozekhome, SAN
Introduction
The recent Supreme Court judgment in SUNDAY JACKSON V. STATE (SC/CR/1026/2022), delivered on the 7th of March, 2025, has sparked widespread legal and moral outrage across Nigeria. In affirming the death sentence handed down by the trial court, the apex court failed to deliver substantial justice in a case marked by procedural breaches, rigid legalism, and a troubling disregard for the fundamental right of self-defence. This essay critically examines the judgment, arguing that it is unjust, perverse, unscholarly, and wholly unjustified in both reasoning and outcome.
In a nation where the winds of uncertainty often shake the pillars of governance, the judiciary stands as the last bastion of hope, a symbol of justice, fairness and the enduring promise that truth can still prevail in Nigeria.
The gravity of judicial responsibility, particularly at the level of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, cannot be overstated. As the apex court and final arbiter of justice, the Supreme Court stands as the ultimate guardian of the Nigerian Constitution, the protector of public rights, and the interpreter of the law. Its pronouncements not only resolve individual disputes but also shape the trajectory of national jurisprudence, social order, and democratic integrity. A single judgment from the Supreme Court becomes binding precedent, reverberating through all lower courts and across the institutions of governance. This elevated position demands that its Justices of the apex court exercise the highest levels of legal intellect, moral integrity and impartial deliberations unclouded by politics, fear, favour, prejudice or personal interest.
The sanctity of the Court rests on the public’s faith in its wisdom, objectivity and commitment to justice. Citizens turn to the judiciary when every other organ of government has failed them; it is the last hope of the common man. Therefore, a poorly reasoned or blatantly biased judgment from the Supreme Court does more than harm the litigants before it inflicts deep and lasting damage on the national psyche. It sows seeds of cynicism and disillusionment, erodes confidence in the rule of law, and emboldens lawlessness in both high and low places. Worse still, inconsistent or politically tainted decisions fracture the coherence of the legal system, leaving lower courts unsure, litigants confused, and legal practitioners adrift. In a society already grappling with instability, corruption, and contested democratic norms, the Supreme Court’s responsibility becomes even more sacrosanct. Its every judgment must be a beacon of clarity, fairness and constitutional fidelity, because when justice falters at the summit, the entire legal edifice trembles beneath it.
The Sunday Jackson Metaphor
With every passing day, Sunday Jackson, draws closer to having a noose around his neck and a chair kicked from under him. He awaits a governor’s signature, his fate balanced between the executioner’s grip and the taste of freedom. The final conviction and death sentence passed on Sunday Jackson, a young farmer from Adamawa State, has sparked both legal and moral outrage, not only because of the Supreme Court’s judgement but also due to the broader implications it carries for justice, equity and the ordinary Nigerian’s faith in the law. At the heart of this case is a man, living in a region marred by years of deadly conflict between pastoralist herders and sedentary farmers, an environment where survival is often tied to the right to defend one’s land and life. Most Nigerians believe that the justice edifice failed citizen Jackson from the High Court, through to the intermediate court and up to the Supreme Court.
Summary of Facts
SUNDAY JACKSON V. THE STATE (SUPRA)
On the 7th of March, 2025, the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered a judgment that sent shockwaves through legal and civil society circles. The apex court upheld the death sentence passed Sunday Jackson, a local farmer from Adamawa State, who had been convicted of killing a Fulani herdsman, Ardo Bawuro, during a violent encounter on his farmland. The facts surrounding the case raised significant questions about fairness, judicial reasoning and the fundamental right to self-defence.
The incident that led to Jackson’s prosecution occurred sometime in 2018 in Kodomti, Numan Local Government Area of Adamawa State. Jackson had gone to harvest thatching grass on his farm when he was confronted by Bawuro, who allegedly accused him of being involved in the killing of his cattle. A confrontation ensued. According to Jackson’s statement, Bawuro attacked him with a dagger. In the struggle that followed, Jackson managed to disarm him and, in a bid to protect himself, stabbed Bawuro in the neck multiple times. The herdsman died from his injuries. Jackson fled the scene but was later apprehended and charged with culpable homicide punishable with death.
The Judgement And Some Legal Challenges
Despite Jackson’s plea of self-defence, the trial court in Adamawa state and subsequently the Court of Appeal, rejected his argument and found him guilty of murder under Section 221 of the Penal Code. The Supreme Court, in affirming this decision, concluded that Jackson’s use of force was excessive and unnecessary once the threat was neutralized by his having disarmed his assailant. This reasoning, however, has not gone unchallenged.
The judgment, which took 167 days to be delivered after the final written addresses far exceeding the 90-day constitutional deadline raises serious procedural concerns. Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution mandates that judgments must be delivered not later than 90 days after the conclusion of arguments. Legal analysts argue that such delays not only breach constitutional provisions but also affect the credibility and validity of judgments, especially in capital cases where human life is at stake.
Even more contentious was the court’s interpretation of self-defence. While acknowledging that self-defence is a complete defence to murder, the court still found that Jackson fulfilled only part of the legal criteria. According to the judgment, although Jackson did not provoke the attack and was in immediate peril, he failed to retreat once he had disarmed the deceased. The court reasoned that having seized the dagger, Jackson no longer faced an imminent threat and should have fled instead of retaliating with deadly force. This position has been widely criticized as unrealistic and disconnected from the realities of violent encounters.
Jackson’s claim was consistent and straightforward; he acted instinctively to preserve his life in the face of sudden, life-threatening danger. The stabbing occurred during a physical struggle. The notion that he had a clear and safe opportunity to flee while entangled in a fight with an armed opponent is, at best, speculative and, at worst, a dangerous oversimplification of a clear and perfect danger to his life. The apex court appeared to construct a simplistic mental narrative that did not align with the raw, chaotic nature of real-life violence.
The most alarming aspect of the judgment was the court’s failure to apply the doctrine of excessive self-defence, which is well recognized under Section 222(2) of the Penal Code. This provision reduces a murder charge to manslaughter where death occurs in the course of self-defence but with force that exceeds what is reasonably necessary. In similar cases, such AS OKONKWO V STATE (1998) 4 NWLR 143 CA, the courts acknowledged the value of subjective human reaction under extreme fear and pressure. The Supreme Court, in Jackson’s case, chose a strictly objective standard and ignored compelling evidence that Jackson acted in a state of panic and fear.
In a nation plagued by constant deadly farmer-herder clashes, often fueled by a failure of state security and law enforcement, the case of Sunday Jackson represents a grim reminder of how legal rigidity can compound social injustice. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to clarify and evolve the jurisprudence of self-defence in Nigeria to align it with human reality, constitutional guarantees, and moral common sense. Instead, it chose a path, in my humble thinking, that seems more invested in procedural technicality than in substantial justice.
As the Supreme Court famously held, justice, ultimately, must not only be done but must be seen to have been done. In Sunday Jackson’s case, it appears neither was. See ADMINISTRATOR & EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ABACHA V SAMUEL DAVID EKE-SPIFF & ORS (2009) LPELR – 3152and R. V. SUSSEX JUSTICES EXPARTE MCCARTHY (1924) 1KB 256 at 259.
Overview Of The Supreme Court Judgement: Points Of Concern
1. Procedural Irregularities and Constitutional Violations in judgment delivery
One of the most glaring issues with the judgment is the court’s failure to address a fundamental procedural breach, the inordinate delay in judgment delivery. Section 294 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended) mandates that courts must deliver judgment within 90 days of final addresses. In Jackson’s case, after final written submissions on the 27th of August, 2020, judgment was not delivered until the 10th of February, 2021, a staggering 167-day delay. This delay not only breached the Constitution but also the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of the state, which guards against undue delay in criminal trials. And as the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. See the cases of COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EKIADOLOR & ORS V OBAYAGBONA (1028) LPELR-40154 (CA)and DIAMOND BANK PLC V SLIMPOT (NIG) LTD (2018) LPELR-41612 (CA).
Such procedural irregularities are not mere technicalities when the life of an accused is on the line. Legal precedent and statutory provisions affirm that a judgment delivered outside constitutional limits is voidable, especially when it could amount to a miscarriage of justice. Yet, the Supreme Court chose to sidestep this error, affirming a death sentence based on a tainted process. The implications of this oversight go beyond Jackson’s case; it undermines public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to uphold its own rules.
2. Misapplication of the Doctrine of Self-defence
The Supreme Court’s narrow and mechanical application of the self-defence doctrine marks another troubling aspect of the judgment. By Jackson’s uncontested account, he was suddenly and violently attacked by the deceased, a herdsman armed with a dagger. A physical struggle ensued, during which Jackson managed to disarm the attacker and, in a moment of survival instinct, stabbed him multiple times. Jackson then fled the scene.
The court held that once Jackson had disarmed his assailant, he was no longer in danger and should have retreated. This finding was both speculative and disconnected from the realities of close-combat self-defence. The retrieval of the weapon and the fatal stabbing occurred nearly simultaneously, during an intense physical altercation. The court’s assumption that Jackson had a viable opportunity to retreat was not supported by the available evidence. It further ignored the psychological turmoil and imminent threat Jackson faced at that moment.
Even if Jackson exceeded reasonable force in the heat of the encounter, section 222(2) of the Penal Code clearly states that where death results from excessive force used in self-defence in good faith, the appropriate charge is manslaughter, not murder. The court’s refusal to consider this statutory mitigation reveals a disturbing commitment to technical rigidity over fair and context-sensitive adjudication.
3. Failure of Substantial Justice and Misjudgment of Facts
The Supreme Court’s approach to Jackson’s case represents a deeper judicial failure: the substitution of presumed scenarios for proven facts. The court’s analysis was built on the mental construction of a disarmed aggressor lying harmlessly before a free and unthreatened Jackson. This imaginary scene contradicts Jackson’s account, which described a wrestling struggle during which he gained control of the weapon in a moment of sheer survival.
The court overlooked the critical fact that Jackson and his attacker remained in physical contact throughout the ordeal. In such close quarters, it is unrealistic to presume Jackson had the luxury of time or physical ability to disengage without first ensuring his own safety by incapacitating his assailant. Additionally, the court failed to reckon with the reasonable fear that the attacker still within reach could have reclaimed the weapon, or grabbed any other weapon within reach (e.g, a piece of rock, tree branch, etc) and attacked Jackson.
Even the court’s suo motu exploration of the defence of provocation was, with respect, mishandled. Although it recognized that Jackson acted in the heat of passion and under grave provocation, it however concluded erroneously that there was sufficient time for his passion to have cooled. This is a legal fiction unsupported by the chronology of events as admitted in Jackson’s confessional statement.
In dismissing the defence of provocation, the court claimed Jackson’s passion had cooled. But how could it have? The entire incident happened in a blur of chaos; in the heat of the moment when reason had vacated its seat and when there was no time for passion to have cooled down. This was not a pre-medicated or calculated revenge; it was a reflex action for survival. And the law is supposed to understand that.
4. Failure of the Supreme Court to Take Judicial Notice of the lingering Farmer-Herder Crisis in Assessing the Defence of Self-Defence
In affirming the conviction and death sentence of Sunday Jackson, the Supreme Court appeared to have approached the case in a vacuum, as though the incident took place in a socially and historically neutral setting. It made no reference whatsoever to the widely recognized and ongoing farmers-herders conflict that have plagued communities across Adamawa State and much of Nigeria’s Middle Belt, South-West, South-South and South-East. This oversight is striking, particularly given that Jackson’s alleged assailant, a herder, confronted him in a rural bush area, a pattern consistent with the violent clashes that have led to hundreds of deaths and displacements in the region.
Under Section 124 of the Evidence Act, Nigerian courts are permitted and indeed expected to take judicial notice of facts that are so notorious or well-known that they are not reasonably open to question. The farmers-herders conflict, and the tension and hostility they generate in affected communities, fall squarely within this category. The Supreme Court’s failure to contextualize Jackson’s fear and response within this reality deprived the case of necessary social, sociological and historical nuance.
The court ought to have appreciated that Jackson, being part of a vulnerable and frequently targeted farming community, would have reasonably perceived any sudden attack from a known herder as a mortal threat. By ignoring this critical background, the judgment appears detached from the lived experiences of rural Nigerians and fails to reflect the court’s obligation to administer justice not merely according to the letter of the law, but in alignment with the broader circumstances that inform human behaviour.
The Supreme Court had a chance, a golden opportunity, to expand Nigerian jurisprudence on self-defence: To recognize that not all threats come with time to think; that a farmer attacked on his own land should not be condemned for failing to flee; that justice must take into account the real-life context in which people act, not just the sterile pages of law books.
The Defences of Self-Defence and Provocation
What is self defense under the Nigerian Law?
Self-defence is the protection of one’s person or property (Section 289 Criminal Code (CC) against some injury attempted by another. This right is recognized on the basis that it constitutes a lawful justification for the use of force in repelling an assault against one’s person (Section 32(3) Criminal Code). In the Penal Code, it is also referred to as private defence (Section 59 Penal Code (PC) In the usual course of law, the use of such force would constitute a criminal offence; however, it is deemed justified under the doctrine of self-defence (John v The State [2012] 7 NWLR (pt.1299) 336 C.A).
In EKPOUDO V. THE STATE (2021) LPELR-52826(CA)) the Court of Appeal defined self-defence as; “the use of force to protect oneself, one’s family or one’s property from a real or threatened attack”. Typically, a person is justified in using a reasonable degree of force in self-defence when they have a reasonable belief that imminent bodily harm is threatened and that such force is necessary to prevent the danger.
Section 32(3) of the Criminal Code stipulates that a person shall not be held criminally liable for an act if it is reasonably necessary to resist actual and unlawful violence directed at themselves or another individual in their presence.
To activate the above section, the Apex Court in UWAEKWEGHINYA V. THE STATE (2005) 9 NWLR (PT. 930) 27, the Supreme Court held that “Where a person kills another in defence of himself, such a killing is excused, and it does not amount to manslaughter under the Criminal Code or Culpable Homicide not punishable with death under the Penal Code. The defence of self-defence is a complete defence under the Criminal Code and the Penal Code and a successful defence of self-defence leads to the discharge and acquittal of the accused person.”
This position was also reiterated in the case of LAWALI V. STATE (2021) LPELR-56431 where the Court of Appeal opined as follows:
“The Law is that, if the intention of an accused person in doing an unlawful act was not to kill or cause grievous harm, but the act resulted in the death of a person, a verdict of culpable homicide not punishable with death will be returned. This is in line with the provisions of section 222 (4) of the Penal Code which states that culpable homicide is not punishable with death if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”
The consequence of this is that self-defence is constitutionally afforded to an individual who is attacked by another, serving as a necessary defense, with specific elements that must be demonstrated or proven in order to succeed in the claim.
In order for the plea of self-defence to succeed, the following must be present as outlined by the Supreme Court in RASHEED AMINU V THE STATE ((2019) 7 NWLR (pt.1672) 481). They constitute the requisite ingredients of self-defence under section 32(3) of the Criminal Code to wit:
a. That the victim was attacking or about to attack the defendant in a manner that grievous hurt and or death was possible, thus he had to defend himself.
b. That the self-defence was instantaneous and contemporaneous with threatened attack.
c. That the mode of defence was not greater or disproportionate with the threatened attack.
To elaborate further on self-defence under the Penal Code, the apex court in MOHAMMAD V. THE STATE ((2019) 4 NWLR (pt. 1661) 98 at 101) adopted the ingredients laid down in Rasheed AMINU V. THE STATE ((2019) 7 NWLR (pt.1627) 481). This obviously evidenced that the ingredients of self–defence under the Criminal Code and Penal codes are the same. The court of appeal in MOHAMMED V. STATE (2020) LPELR-50919(CA) held that:
“The defence of self-defence is clearly a child of necessity. It is a defence that is not pleaded as a matter of course, but one in which the defendant is expected to establish that he was at the time of the killing in reasonable apprehension of death to himself or grievous harm and that it was necessary at the time to use the force which resulted in the death of the deceased in order to preserve his life. As an important aspect of the force used by the defendant must be shown to be proportionate to the force used or imminently threatened against him and reasonable in the circumstances in which it was used. The defence of self-defence, of course is not available where the person attacked used a greater degree of force than was necessary in repelling the attack.”
The defence of provocation, which can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, was also considered. The law recognizes provocation where:
1. The accused was provoked by a sudden and grave act.
2. The provocation deprived the accused of self-control.
3. The act of killing occurred before time to regain composure.
The Supreme Court in the Jackson case acknowledged that being stabbed could amount to grave provocation. But it held that Jackson, having overpowered his attacker, had time however brief to calm down. Thus, the Court concluded that he acted not in the heat of passion but in calculated retaliation.
It must be pointed out that this standard fails to appreciate the psychological and physiological state of someone who has just survived a violent, near-death encounter. Expecting dispassionate judgment in such moments is unrealistic, especially when such expectation is judged from a removed, academic standpoint.
The Dissenting Opinion; A Voice Of Moderation
Many a time, events or decisions can appear entirely reasonable when outlined on paper neatly justified by logic, data, or policy. But the moment a human face is attached to that same event, the perspective shifts. What once seemed like a practical or even necessary action can suddenly feel personal, emotional, and far more complex. Numbers do not cry. Statistics do not have families. But people do. And when the abstract becomes tangible, when names replace case numbers and stories replace bullet points, we are reminded that reason alone is not always enough we need empathy, too.
Honorable Justice Helen Ogunwumiju, JSC, in her lone but fierce dissent, opined:
“It is not reasonable, nor indeed natural, to expect that a man who has been stabbed twice and suddenly finds himself struggling for his life, would pause to calibrate the proportionality of his defensive action. The expectation of retreat after such an attack is neither practical nor fair.”
Her Lordship emphasized the necessity of interpreting the law in light of real human experience, not abstract logic. She criticized the trial court for relying solely on Jackson’s confessional statement, which was never legally contested but also never corroborated by external forensic or eyewitness evidence. Her dissent concluded that Jackson acted within the permissible limits of both self-defence and provocation. She called for the exercise of executive clemency and recommended that Jackson’s case be reconsidered for a possible pardon.
The Critique
The Supreme Court decision has been criticized as perverse, unjust and unscholarly by many in the legal community. Writers and Editorials from various public newspaper platforms like The Guardian, ThisDay and Premium times have lamented that the judiciary has allowed form to triumph over substance, and that the decision reflects a worrying detachment from the realities of violence, especially in Nigeria’s agrarian belt.
The realities of violence surrounding Adamawa State is not novel to the natives of the “Land of Beauty”. As an overture, Numan, a town which lends its name to one of the constitutionally established 21 Local Government Areas of Adamawa State in North-East Nigeria, serves as the ancestral homeland of the Bwatiye (also referred to as Bachama) people, a socio-cultural group with transboundary ethnic affiliations extending into parts of the Republic of Cameroon. Geographically situated within the Benue River basin and nourished by one of its significant tributaries, the Taraba River, Numan’s arable lands have historically supported robust sedentary agricultural activities. In parallel, the region has long accommodated Fulbe pastoralists, who have relied on its grazing potential for the sustenance of their livestock.
These ecological and demographic dynamics have positioned Numan as a significant locus in the protracted and violent conflict over livelihoods between sedentary agrarian communities and armed nomadic pastoralists in Nigeria’s Middle Belt. Commonly characterized as a crisis arising from “scarce land and water resources,” this conflict is estimated to have resulted in the deaths of approximately 10,000 individuals since about 2013. It is widely regarded as the second most lethal conflict in Nigeria, following the insurgency perpetrated by the Boko Haram group.
From approximately 2015 to early 2018, Numan was a central theatre of violent confrontations between farming communities and armed pastoralist groups. Although the precise casualty figures remain indeterminate, independent reporting such as that by researcher James Court right in a 2023 publication indicates that by the cessation of hostilities in January 2018, approximately 150 persons had been killed, numerous villages razed, and hundreds of Fulbe residents displaced. The severity of the crisis gave rise to legal proceedings before the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court of Justice).
On the 5th of December, 2017, the then Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Professor Yemi Osinbajo, SAN, undertook an official visit to Adamawa State for a firsthand assessment of the situation. In the aftermath of this visit, the Federal Government implemented emergency relief measures targeting affected communities, including Dong, Lawaru, and Kukumso in Demsa Local Government Area; and Shafaron, Kodomti, Tullum, Mzoruwe, and Mararraban Bare in Numan Local Government Area. Concurrently, the Government initiated a nationwide consultation exercise intended to explore sustainable resolutions to the farmers-herders conflict. However, this initiative ultimately failed to yield conclusive outcomes.
Amidst these developments, the events that unfolded in Jackson’s case in 2018, in the Kodomti village became the subject of criminal investigation and prosecution, culminating in appellate review by the Supreme Court of Nigeria, which rendered its decision on the 7th of March, 2025. The incident in question occurred on the 27th of January, 2015, on farmland belonging to one Sunday Jackson, a farmer, who stabbed to death, an assailant Alhaji Ardo Bawuro. Following an altercation, Alhaji Ardo Bawuro was found dead, having sustained three fatal stab wounds to the neck, allegedly inflicted by Mr. Jackson.
There is yet another major flaw in the judgement. Justice Isamani in his concurring judgement believed that having successfully collected the dagger from Ardo Bawuro, one stab was enough and three excessive, showing vengefulness. There was however no evidence before the apex court as to which of the three stabs actually killed Baworo. Supposing it was the very first stab? There existed a coroner’s report, nowhere did the judgement mention a pathologist’s report. Even the extra-judicial statement of Jackson to the Police was self-explanatory: “On Tuesday, 27/01/15 at about 11:10 hrs, I left my village and was cutting thatching grasses in a bush located in Kodomti village in Numan LGA when the deceased, Alh Buba Bawuro as identified attacked me after loosing sight of some persons alleged to be pursuing for killing his cattle. He attacked me in frustration and wanted to stab me with a dagger then we engaged in a wrestling encounter. I succeeded in seizing the dagger from him which I used to stab him thrice on his throat. When the deceased collapsed and was rolling down in a pool of his blood, I took heels and escaped.”
Conclusion: Justice Denied In The Shadow Of Law
The case of SUNDAY JACKSON V THE STATE will undoubtedly be remembered for a long time not merely for its outcome, but for what it reveals about the fractured justice state in Nigeria. It exposes a legal system which, in its current form, too often prioritizes theoretical coherence over practical reality; doctrine over humanity; technicalities over substance. The Supreme Court’s judgment, it is respectfully submitted, though cloaked in the flowery language of precedent and procedural neatness, stands as perverse, unscholarly and ultimately unjustified. It delivered no justice.
To call a man a murderer for surviving an unprovoked, near-fatal attack on his own farmland is to weaponize the law against its own purpose. Sunday Jackson, a young farmer defending his life and livelihood on his own farmland acted with the instinct that every human shares of in the will to live. That the apex Court of the land could dissect this instinct and declare it criminal speaks volumes of how detached our jurisprudence has become from the people it is meant to serve.
I humbly submit that the judgement is perverse not because it breaks the law, but because it follows the law to an end so twisted that it no longer resembles justice. It placed law above justice, whereas the same apex court in BELLO v A.G. OYO STATE (1986) 5 NWLR 820 had warned that “the law is but the handmaid to deliver justice”. The Jackson judgement required a man stabbed twice to retreat from his own land to where, we were not told. It expected him to anticipate whether his attacker might find a piece of rock or regroup for a second assault. It condemns him for failing to act like a measured tactician weighing proportionality response on an imaginary scale instead of a terrified human being, battling to save his life. This is legal reasoning turned against lived experience.
I respectfully submit that the judgment is unscholarly because it refused to engage with evolving legal standards across comparative jurisdictions. Nigerian courts have long clung to outdated colonial constructs, many of which have been discarded or revised in the very legal systems that birthed them. From the “stand your grounds” doctrine in American states, to the Canadian recognition of “psychological trauma” in violent encounters, and even to UK precedents acknowledging “mistaken but honest fear”, the world has since moved forward. The majority judgment in Sunday Jacksonremains rooted in a shrinking past of the better-forgotten dark ages.
Above all, the judgment is wholly unjust. Justice, as both a constitutional promise and a moral imperative, must protect the vulnerable, not punish them for surviving. Justice must never weaponise the State against its citizens. In affirming Jackson’s death sentence, the apex court did not uphold justice; it merely enforced legality; and the difference is not semantic; it is foundational. A man who should have been granted mercy, or at worst leniency, was given the harshest penalty known to law. That to me is injustice calculated and codified.
Furthermore, the Judiciary’s refusal to interrogate the flawed confessional statement extracted without the presence of Counsel and uncorroborated by independent evidence, further reflects the systemic inequities that plague Nigeria’s criminal justice process. This was not merely a case of legal misjudgment; it was a case study in how structural violence is reproduced through courts and clothed in legitimacy.
From the requirement to retreat, to the burden of proving necessity, to the casual dismissal of oral testimony that bore the ring of truth, Jackson was failed at every level by the police, by prosecutors, by courts, and ultimately, by the legal system itself. That a dissenting opinion even existed is a reminder that this case was never clear-cut. It was always contestable, will always be. It was always arguable and will always be. Therefore, it should never have ended with death.
My Take
This article has endeavored to do what the judgment failed to do: to place the facts, the context, and the humanity of Sunday Jackson at the centre of legal reflection. It has argued that the doctrines of self-defence and provocation must be reformed to reflect contemporary realities. It has proposed legislative models that anchor the law not in cold abstraction but in the moral urgency of justice; of now. In the final analysis, law must be more than logic. It must be a living instrument of equity. It must be an instrument of social engineering (Dean Roscoe Pound). If the system cannot protect a man who defends himself from death, then we must ask: whose life does the law truly value or protect? Which life matters? Let the case of Sunday Jackson be the moment we stopped asking that question in silence.
Finally, it is submitted that the conviction of Sunday Jackson in the case under review is an unwarranted violation by the Supreme Court and the lower courts of his right to self-defence and right to life. I humbly submit that the apex court majority decision in the case is full of contradictions, inconsistencies and departure from familiar law and its own stare decisis. Self-defence is a taken for granted as a defence not only in all common law countries and in other jurisdictions but under international human rights law. It is recognized under section 33 (2) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. So, why would the Supreme Court undermine it here? As strange and unacceptable as the lead judgment of Hon. Justice M.B. Idris is in the case, unfortunately, some other Hon. Justices; Emmanuel Agim, Haruna Simon Tsammani and Habeeb Abiru sided with him as they delivered concurring judgments! Only Hon. Justice Helen Ogunwumiju dissented. Equally shocking is the fact that the concurring Justices all failed to hold that, at worst; the Defendant/Appellant should have been convicted for the lesser offence of manslaughter rather than culpable homicide punishable with death (murder). Must we always have concurring judgments, especially when those judgments deviate from set stare decisis and they are too terse to be credible?
It is also humbly submitted that SUNDAY JACKSON v THE STATE is just one of the many inexplicable, emanating from our courts, the apex Court to excluded. The list is increasing: 2020 Imo State governorship election case; 2018 Osun State governorship election case; 2019 Kogi State governorship election case; PILLARS v DESBORDES; MACHINA’S APC PRIMARIES case; Rivers State political crisis case; People’s Democratic Party National Secretary tussle case, etc. Some of these judgements are unconsciously making Nigerians lose confidence in the Judiciary. And I pray and hope that rampant self-help and anarchy will not follow, if the trend continues. As a sworn Solicitor and Advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, a legal scholar, social critic and a believer in the Nigerian project, I am particularly bothered, because lower courts are bound by these judgments (precedents) which hardly serve justice. I implore the Supreme Court to rise and join the campaign for a new Nigeria that will not just be for the elites but also for the masses.
