Justice Denied? Supreme Court’s Judgement in Sunday Jackson’s Self-Defence Case (Part 1)
Introduction
The recent Supreme Court judgement 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. Though Ogunwumiju, JSC delivered a dissenting judgement allowing Jackson’s appeal, 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 judgement from the Supreme Court becomes binding precedent, reverberating through all lower courts and across the institutions of governance. This elevated position demands that the 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 judgement from the Supreme Court does more than harm on 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 judgement 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 judgement that sent shockwaves through legal and civil society circles. The Apex Court in its majority judgement, upheld the death sentence passed on 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 neutralised by his having disarmed his assailant. This reasoning, however, has not gone unchallenged.
The judgement, 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 judgements 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 judgements, 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 found that Jackson fulfilled only part of the legal criteria. According to the majority judgement, 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 criticised, 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 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.
The most alarming aspect of the judgement was the court’s failure to apply the doctrine of excessive self-defence, which is well recognised 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.
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 – 3152 and R. v SUSSEX JUSTICES EXPARTE MCCARTHY (1924) 1KB 256 at 259.
Overview of the Supreme Court Judgement: Points of Concern
1. The Supreme Court Overlooked Procedural Irregularities and Constitutional Violations in the Court of Appeal’s Judgement
One of the most glaring issues with the judgement, is the court’s failure to address a fundamental procedural breach, the inordinate delay in judgement delivery. Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended) mandates that courts must deliver judgement within 90 days of final addresses. In Jackson’s case, after final written submissions were adopted on the 27th of August, 2020, judgement was not delivered by the Court of Appeal 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 irregularities are not mere technicalities, when the life of an accused is on the line. Legal precedent and statutory provisions affirm that a judgement 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 judgement. 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. (To be continued)
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice”. (Montesquieu)
