A Senior Advocate of Nigeria Mike Ozekhome has strongly criticised the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the death sentence of an Adamawa Christian farmer convicted of killing a herdsman in self-defence.
The farmer had argued that he acted to protect himself and his family during an attack by the herdsman. Still, the highest court in Nigeria rejected his appeal, affirming the sentence passed by the lower courts.
On March 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered a judgment that sent shockwaves through legal and civil society circles. The apex court 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.
According to the lawyer, the facts surrounding the case raised significant questions about fairness, judicial reasoning and the fundamental right to self-defence.
He said, “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.”
Ozekhome described the ruling as a grave miscarriage of justice, highlighting the challenges faced by rural farmers who are often victims of violent attacks from armed herdsmen.
He stressed that the judiciary should not be used to oppress innocent people who are forced to defend their lives and properties.
“The recent Supreme Court judgment 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. 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.”
The case is seen as emblematic of the broader conflict between farmers and herders in Nigeria’s Middle Belt region, a crisis that has led to widespread displacement and destruction. Legal experts and human rights advocates have expressed concerns that such rulings may worsen the situation by denying victims the right to protect themselves.
The Supreme Court’s affirmation of the death sentence has sparked debate about how the Nigerian legal system should balance self-defence with criminal penalties, particularly in regions plagued by insecurity. Critics argue that without legal protection for victims, violence may escalate further.
“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.”
Ozekhome called for justice that not only punishes wrongdoing but also safeguards the innocent, warning that denying victims the right to defend themselves could lead to greater instability and loss of lives in affected communities.
“The Law is that, if the intention of an accused person in doing an unlawful act was not to kill or cause grievous harm, but the act resulted in the death of a person, a verdict of culpable homicide not punishable with death will be returned,” he said.
“This is in line with the provisions of section 222 (4) of the Penal Code which states that culpable homicide is not punishable with death if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted cruelly or unusually.”
