On Friday, March 7th, the Supreme Court of Nigeria upheld the death sentence of Sunday Johnson, a 29-year old farmer from Adamawa state, who killed a Fulani herdsman in what he claims was an act of self-defense in 2015.

The ruling in this case, “Sunday v. State” has sparked heated debates and criticisms from human rights activists on the limits of self-defense and its legal interpretation in Nigeria, and on the general state of the Nigerian judiciary in such sensitive matters.

The Backstory

In January 27, 2015, Sunday Jackson, per his statement to the police, was working on his farm when an armed herdsman allegedly invaded the property. The herdsman reportedly attacked him with a knife, injuring him but Jackson successfully disarmed him by seizing the dagger.

Rather than escaping, Jackson defended himself by stabbing the herdsman three times in the throat before fleeing the scene, and he explicitly admitted to killing the deceased in his confessional statement.

An Adamawa court convicted Jackson of murder and sentenced him to death by hanging, and the ruling went on appeal. Over the past ten years, the case has progressed on appeal to higher ranking courts, leading up to the Supreme Court’s eventual decision on Friday, March 7th.

Before this, the Court of Appeal had rejected the self-defense argument on grounds of “neutralized threat”, reasoning that although the deceased herdsman was the aggressor, once Jackson seized the dagger, he neutralized the immediate threat.

The court, per Justice Chidi Nwaoma (J.C.A.), held that he had alternatives, such as incapacitating the deceased by stabbing in a non-lethal body part instead of the throat, a highly sensitive area where a single stab could foreseeably cause death. Accordingly, the fact that Jackson stabbed the deceased three times further negated the essential element of self-defense.

The self-defense argument was also rejected by the Court of Appeal on grounds that there was an escape route, and for self-defense to be tenable in such matters, the law requires the absence of a reasonable escape route.

Flowing from this, the court reasoned that since the incident occurred in a bush, Jackson could have fled the scene rather than using lethal force. Hence, his decision to stab the deceased three times rather than escape suggested retaliation rather than self-preservation.

The Supreme Court equally rejected the self-defense argument and affirmed this decision, upholding Johnson’s death sentence.

As it stands, Sunday Jackson remains on the death row, one of over 3,500 Nigerians awaiting execution, as of 2024. Meanwhile, no execution has been carried out in Nigeria since 2016, during Adams Oshiomole’s tenure as governor of Edo state.

Reacting to news about Jackson’s sentence, a US-based Pastor and human rights activist, Dr. William Delvin, lamented at the “failure of the Nigerian Supreme Court.”

In an interview with Arise News, Delvin opined that the Supreme Court had the opportunity to declare Sunday Jackson innocent but didn’t and that now, he has become “an international case for human rights.”

“We will continue to advocate for him,” he said.

The verdict has led to controversy, sparking outrage among Nigerians and the international community, with organizations like Open Doors closely monitoring the case and others calling for the Adamawa State governor to grant Jackson clemency.

His supporters view the ruling as a gross miscarriage of justice and argue that at most, a charge of manslaughter would have been appropriate. Instead, he has spent over a decade in prison — with six out of those ten years awaiting trial for a case that involved only five court sittings.

Nigerians are particularly concerned on the impacts of such a verdict, as many fear that it may lead to more citizens being criminalized for defending themselves, particularly in a country where violent attacks by armed groups, many of which have been led by herdsmen over the past few years, have led to thousands of deaths.

GI’s Legal Corner

This case raises cogent questions on the integrity of Nigeria’s legal system and it exposes issues on systemic inefficiencies in our judicial processes.

To start with, facts show that Jackson’s trial was marred by delays and procedural irregularities. According to reports, after the final arguments were presented on August 27, 2020, judgment was not delivered until 167 days later, in February 10, 2021, far exceeding the 90-day limit mandated by the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, as amended, for the delivery of judgments.

It can therefore be argued that this delay likely contributed to the unfavorable outcome for Johnson.

Additionally, human rights activists have criticized the courts’ narrow application of the self-defense principle, arguing that such interpretation makes it almost impossible for individuals to successfully plead the defense, even in genuine cases of self-preservation.

While the courts technically applied legal principles which are consistent with past precedents on self-defense, the judicial delays and violation of constitutionally protected rights, particularly Section 36 on fair hearing, raise doubts on whether Jackson truly received justice in the case.

Dear readers, we really need your support to keep on serving you with authoritative, truthful, and juicy stories everyday. For your support, please reach out to the editor @gavelinternational66@gmail.com