Notwithstanding Nigeria’s legal provisions for self-defence and constitutional guarantees of justice, the country’s courts have often been criticised for prioritising rigid legal interpretations over practical realities. This concern resurfaced on March 7 when the Supreme Court sentenced Sunday Jackson, a farmer from Adamawa state, to death for killing an armed herdsman in what the court admitted was self-defence but “taken too far.”
The convict’s ordeal began in 2015 when he worked on his farm. According to reports, an armed herder attacked him, leading to a violent struggle. Despite being injured, Jackson managed to disarm the herdsman and, in the process, killed him. However, instead of being recognised as a victim of aggression, he was arrested, charged with murder, and sentenced to death.
His case has now become a flashpoint in discussions about justice, fairness, and the ongoing tensions between farmers and herders in Nigeria. Many believe the verdict raises troubling questions about whether self-defence is truly recognised as a fundamental right in the country.
A review of Nigeria’s Criminal Act and Penal Code reveals self-defence as a legal justification for using force against unlawful violence. Sections 286 and 287 of the Criminal Code Act permit individuals to protect themselves. In contrast, Section 59 of the Penal Code, which applies in Northern Nigeria, legalises any act done “in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.”
Despite these provisions, courts retain the discretion to determine whether the force used in self-defence was proportionate to the threat faced. In Jackson’s case, this interpretation was critical to the verdict.
The Court of Appeal, upholding the High Court’s ruling, stated that after disarming the deceased, Jackson could have escaped but instead chose to stab the deceased multiple times in the throat. The Supreme Court later affirmed this reasoning and sealed Jackson’s fate.
But these rulings have reignited a fierce debate among the legal practitioners and judicial activists over whether Nigeria’s judiciary fairly applies the law or merely upholds technicalities at the expense of justice.
In her comment on the court’s reasoning, Funke Adeoye, a legal practitioner and executive director of Hope Behind Bars, opined that while an intent to kill or cause grievous harm is a key element in a case of homicide, where a person kills in lawful self-defence, the intention to kill does not arise from hatred or planning, it arises from the necessity to preserve one’s life.
Adeoye’s argument is further expounded in Emmanuel Ogebe’s critique, who questioned the rationality of the courts in Jackson’s sentence despite affirming the knife used in the incident belonged to and was brought by the attacker to kill Jackson.
“And this is where I have a problem. The evidence shows that he [Jackson] was injured in the leg. And then you say that he should have run. So he was at that moment, momentarily incapacitated to even be able to run.”
Legal experts say evidence reveals Jackson confronted a life-threatening situation, and a wound in the leg made his escape unrealistic.
“I cannot agree that a reasonable man who had been stabbed twice already and who was still being attacked with a herdsman’s stick would hesitate to fight for his life,” said Justice Helen Morenikeji, a Supreme Court judge who dissented in the Supreme Court judgment. “It would have been a different thing altogether if there had been an intervening period in the fight.”
Justice Helen Morenikeji held that Sunday Jackson had met all the legal requirements for self-defence under the Nigerian law, saying the convict, who was not the aggressor, faced imminent danger, had no safe avenue of retreat, and used force proportional to the threat.
She continued: “The Appellant took advantage of the fact that the person who had stabbed him on the back of his head, an equally dangerous place to be stabbed, had become temporarily weak and took the opportunity to save his own life.”
But Jackson’s case is not much of judicial activism as it is of the issues surrounding the tensions over Nigeria’s ongoing farmer-herder crisis. Attacks by armed herdsmen on farming communities have been a major source of conflict, leading to thousands of deaths in recent years.
Data from human rights organisations and Nigerian media outlets reveal the severity of these clashes, recording thousands of deaths every year. Between January 2023 and February 2024, Amnesty International reported over 2,800 individuals, including women, children, and the elderly, lost their lives in Benue state due to clashes between farmers and herders. During this period, there were over 230 violent attacks in more than 50 communities, causing massive displacement in the process.
According to Human Rights Watch, retaliatory attacks by farmers have resulted in five deaths among herders and 86 villagers, including women and children, in June 2018.
Over a decade of conflicts among herders and farmers has resulted in each group being vigilant of the other. And since no group has been held particularly accountable despite recorded deaths and destruction, experts believe an individual has a right to defend themselves against any aggression.
While the criminal justice institution’s ineffectiveness is dangerous, a flawed judicial system can be just as harmful. Since the right to self-defence will become meaningless, human rights activists believe Jackson’s sentence sets a troubling precedent: farmers under attack must flee, but if caught, must fall before their attacker and welcome an imminent death.
With the Supreme Court verdict, it is too late for Jackson to secure justice through the judicial channel, and as a last resort, Justice Morenikeji recommends Jackson “as a proper candidate for the Governor of Adamawa state to exercise his prerogative of mercy.”
This is important not just to preserve the morality of self-defence, continued Justice Morenikeji, but also because it is a principle enshrined in law and backed by judicial precedent.
