On a beautiful morning on the 27th of January, 2015, 29-year-old Sunday Jackson was tilling the land and tending to his crop in the Kodomti community in the Numan local government area when a Fulani herdsman, Buba Ardo Bawuro, casually herded his cattle onto his farm. When Jackson accosted him and told him to move his cattle out of his farm, Bawuro pulled out a knife, as it is wont to do of Fulani herdsmen, and violently attacked Jackson. However, Jackson overpowered and subdued him, took the knife from him and stabbed him in self-defence. Bawuro later died from the injury he sustained during the attack.
Jackson did not know then that his action, which was an act of Self-defence and constitutionally recognised, would mark the beginning of the end for him. The coming years and the decade that followed would see his court case become steeped in legal manoeuvring that defied basic logic and became a litmus test for Nigeria’s judiciary.
Arraignment and legal fireworks
Jackson was arrested and later arraigned before Yola High Court in November 2018. He was charged with culpable homicide, which is punishable by death under Section 211 of the penal code. During his trial, he confessed that his attacker died as a result of the injury he inflicted on him after he fended off his attack; he said he was not guilty of any offence. The prosecution prayed to the trial judge, Fatima Ahmed Tafida, to convict Jackson based on his confessional statement. But Jackson’s lawyer countered, praying the court to discharge and acquit his client because he acted in self-defence
The shocking judgement and the long work to the gallows
Then in February 2021, the judge gave a bizarre and alarming judgment. She held that because Jackson had confessed that he killed the herdsman, he, too, must die by hanging. She dismissed arguments of self-defence, stating that the assertion that the farmer only defended himself from being killed did not hold water.
The judge opined, rather strangely, that Jackson should have fled the scene the moment he overpowered his attacker. But Jackson could not flee the scene even if he wanted to as he had already been stabbed in the leg and other parts of the body? This fact was made known to the judge, yet she still came to that queer verdict of death sentence.
Judicial chicanery and travesty
Jackson’s trial was dogged by flagrant legal inconsistencies and violation of the law which raised questions about the motive of prosecution and the integrity of the judge.
For a capital punishment offence that ought to have been tried within one week where the defendant had confessed that the assailant died from the brawl, Jackson was kept in custody for years before the trial started. Second, it has to be mentioned that in violation of the According to Section 294 (5), this judgment was delivered well after the statutory 90 days, within which judgments must be delivered after the adoption of the final addresses by lawyers to both parties. What this means is that this judgment ought not to stand at all under normal circumstances, but there was nothing about Jackson’s cases and circumstances in which he found himself.
The Supreme Court and the miscarriage of justice
Many were hopeful that the Supreme Court would reverse the ruling of the Appeal Court that affirmed the death sentence handed to Jackson by the trial court, but the apex Court had other plans. On March 7, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence verdict of the lower courts.
The Supreme Court held that Jackson had acted beyond the permissible threshold of self-defence by stabbing the deceased in the throat multiple times. It also took into account the fact that Jackson admitted in his written testimony that he stabbed the deceased with the intent to kill him. To this end, his action was perceived as retaliatory rather than defensive. The court disregarded his oral testimony for being inconsistent with his (earlier) confessional statement.
Completely ruling out self-defence, the court suo moto considered whether the defence of provocation availed Jackson. Again, the decision was negative. For the defence of provocation to succeed, it must be shown that the death was caused: a) in the heat of passion; b) by grave sudden provocation to deprive the accused of self-control; and c) before there is time for passion to cool. The court held that the case passed the first and second requirements but fell short of the last one. It reached this conclusion based on the material fact that Jackson proceeded to excessively stab the deceased despite having disarmed him.
Interestingly, the judgment was split, with the majority holding that Jackson was guilty of murder, while the presiding justice upheld Jackson’s argument in its entirety. Recognising, however, that her dissent held no sway, Justice Helen Ogunwumiju recommended Jackson “as a proper candidate for the Governor of Adamawa State to exercise his prerogative of mercy.”
The right to use force in defence of oneself or another against an unjustifiable attack has existed from time immemorial. Section 33(2) of the Nigerian constitution guarantees every citizen the right to defend and preserve his life from imminent danger, even if it means taking the life of the attacker. Therefore, a person is justified in using reasonable force to resist anyone who intends to commit a felony against him or any other person in his presence.
Dissenting judgment and other reactions
Honourable Justice Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JSC, in her ruling, opposed the judgement of her colleague, describing the majority judgement as unreasonable and unfair.
“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”.
She underscored the need to interpret the law based on real human experience, not abstract logic. She flayed the trial court for relying only on Jackson’s confessional statement, which was never legally contested, but also never substantiated by external forensic or eyewitness evidence. Her dissent concluded that Jackson acted within the scope of the permitted threshold 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 judgement has also been criticised by top legal minds and seasoned lawyers in the country.
In his reaction, Constitutional lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mike Ozekhome, berated the Supreme Court for affirming the death sentence of Adamawa Christian farmer Sunday Jackson
Ozekhome stated that the conclusion of the Supreme Court raised serious concerns about fair hearing and impartiality and the fundamental right of every Nigerian to defend themselves.
He stated that justices were unreasonable to determine Jackson should have fled after subduing his attacker and that their position ran counter to the realities of violent confrontations.
“The facts surrounding the case raised significant questions about fairness, judicial reasoning and the fundamental right to self-defence,” Mr 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 added, “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,” Mr 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 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 senior lawyer added that the apex court erred in its handling of the case, stating that it violated the constitution by delivering judgment 167 days after the close of the argument when it had a maximum of 90 days.
What the future holds for Jackson.
With every passing day, Jackson, who hails from the Dong community in the Demsa local government area of Adamawa State, inches closer to his death. He patiently waits for when he will be matched to the gallows and the noose is worn around his neck and a chair kicked from under him.
However, he can still escape this tragic and unfortunate end if his plea for clemency from the governor is granted.
Discussion about this post