The Nigerian Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the death sentence of Sunday Jackson has continued to spark widespread outrage, with many questioning the judiciary’s stance on self-defense. The ruling has drawn sharp criticism from human rights advocates and legal experts, especially given the unchecked violence by armed herdsmen against innocent farmers, which has often gone unpunished.
Over the years, farmers and villagers across Nigeria have suffered repeated deadly attacks by armed herdsmen, with little to no justice for the victims. Several cases highlight this troubling pattern.
Despite these attacks, no major convictions have been secured against the perpetrators, raising concerns about double standards in the Nigerian justice system. The Supreme Court’s ruling against Sunday Jackson has now deepened fears that victims are being punished for defending themselves, while attackers operate with impunity.
The Case Against Sunday Jackson.
Sunday Jackson, a former student turned farmer, was working on his farm in Kodum Forest, Numan Local Government Area, Adamawa State, when he was attacked by a herdsman, Buba Bauru. According to Jackson, Bauru and his cattle had strayed into his farm, destroying his crops. When Jackson confronted him, the herdsman allegedly stabbed him multiple times.
In an act of self-defense, Jackson wrestled the knife from his attacker and fatally stabbed him in the neck. He was later arrested and charged with murder, despite maintaining that his actions were to protect his own life.
A court in Yola sentenced him to death in 2021, and in March 2025, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling, leaving Governor Ahmadu Fintiri of Adamawa State as his only hope for clemency.
Supreme Court’s Controversial Justification.
The Supreme Court ruled that four conditions must be met for self-defense to apply: (1) the accused must be free from fault in bringing about the encounter; (2) there must be an imminent peril to life or grievous bodily harm; (3) there must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape; and (4) the use of deadly force must be necessary.
While the court acknowledged that the first two conditions were met, it argued that Jackson had a “reasonable mode of escape by retreat” and that there was “no necessity to take the life of the deceased.” This conclusion was reached despite a lack of evidence on whether retreating was a viable or safe option.
Justice Haruna Tsammani, in a concurring judgment, stated that Jackson acted excessively by stabbing the attacker three times: “A stab would not be considered excessive. However, stabbing the deceased three times in the neck after overpowering him suggests a vengeful act.”
Flaws in the Supreme Court’s Judgment.
Legal expert, Chidi Odinkalu, have strongly condemned the ruling, highlighting several flaws:
- Lack of Evidence on Causation: The court assumed that three stabs were excessive without establishing which stab was fatal. In criminal law, it is the prosecution’s duty to prove causation. Without definitive evidence on which stab killed Bauru, the court had no grounds to dismiss self-defense.
- Unrealistic Standard of Self-Defense: The court’s ruling required Jackson, in a life-threatening struggle, to assess the exact force necessary for survival—a standard that disregards the realities of self-preservation in violent encounters.
- Misjudgment of Escape Viability: The Supreme Court assumed Jackson had a reasonable means of escape without considering the conflict-ridden nature of the Benue River floodplains, where violent confrontations between farmers and herdsmen are common. Expecting Jackson to flee without knowing if more assailants were nearby was unrealistic and unfair.
- Contradictory Reasoning: The court found it acceptable for Jackson to have stabbed his attacker once but not three times, despite no evidence establishing which stab was fatal. If the first stab was lethal, then the claim that three stabs were excessive is legally baseless.
- Misunderstanding of the Conflict Zone: The assumption that Jackson had a viable escape option disregards the dangers of his surroundings. As Odinkalu points out, requiring a person in an active conflict zone to assess their surroundings with near-divine knowledge is an unreasonable legal standard.
Public Outrage and Calls for Clemency.
The ruling has sparked widespread condemnation. Many Nigerians and human rights organizations are now calling on Governor Ahmadu Fintiri to grant clemency to Jackson, arguing that the judgment sets a dangerous precedent where victims of attacks are criminalized for defending themselves.
Emmanuel Ogebe criticized the ruling as a miscarriage of justice, stating: “Nigerians already have to provide their own security, electricity, and infrastructure. Now, they can’t even defend themselves without being sentenced to death.”
The legal team is considering appealing to international human rights bodies, emphasizing that the judgment not only undermines justice but also discourages victims from resisting attackers. Activists warn that if the ruling stands, it could embolden criminals while leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless.
More Read
The Supreme Court, as the final arbiter of justice, is responsible for setting legal precedents. Yet, this ruling raises serious concerns about fairness, the right to self-defense, and the impartiality of the judiciary. As Nigeria grapples with escalating security threats, the fate of Sunday Jackson now lies in the hands of the Adamawa State governor, whose decision will either reinforce the right to self-defense or further erode public trust in the justice system.
