Outrage has continued to trail the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the death sentence of Adamawa-based Christian farmer, Sunday Jackson, for what many have described as an act of self-defence against a killer herdsman.
The apex court, in a ruling delivered on March 7, 2025, affirmed a lower court’s decision sentencing Mr Jackson to death by hanging for killing Fulani herdsman Ardo Bawuro during an altercation on his farmland more than a decade ago. The decision has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, rights advocates, and members of the public, who argue the ruling undermines the constitutional right to self-defence.
One of Nigeria’s foremost constitutional lawyers and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mike Ozekhome, has publicly condemned the judgment. Mr Ozekhome, who also represents the embattled Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu in his terrorism trial, said the verdict raises profound concerns about the integrity of justice in Nigeria.
In his reaction, Mr Ozekhome questioned the rationale of the Supreme Court in determining that Mr Jackson should have fled the scene after seizing a weapon from his attacker, instead of using it to defend himself.
“The facts surrounding the case raised significant questions about fairness, judicial reasoning and the fundamental right to self-defence,” Ozekhome said. “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.”
He continued, “This position has been widely criticised as unrealistic and disconnected from the realities of violent encounters.”
The senior lawyer maintained that Jackson’s actions were consistent with a natural, instinctive human response to a life-threatening situation. He further stressed that the fatal stabbing occurred amid a physical struggle, disputing the court’s suggestion that Jackson had the opportunity to safely disengage from the altercation.
“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,” Ozekhome argued.
“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 present 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.”
Mr Ozekhome also highlighted a procedural flaw in the judgment delivery, pointing out that the apex court delivered its ruling 167 days after the close of arguments—well beyond the constitutional maximum of 90 days. He described this as a violation of the Nigerian Constitution.
The case has become a flashpoint in the national conversation around justice, security, and the rights of rural farmers facing violent attacks. Many citizens and civil society organisations have joined in calling for a review of the judgment and an urgent re-examination of how self-defence is interpreted within the Nigerian legal system.
