Nigerianewslite
Religions
The recent decision by the Supreme Court of Nigeria affirming the death sentence of Sunday Jackson, a Christian farmer from Adamawa State who killed a herdsman during a violent altercation on his farmland marks a deeply troubling turn in Nigeria’s judicial history. This judgment, which has rightly drawn the ire of constitutional lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mike Ozekhome, represents not just a failure of legal reasoning but a betrayal of a citizen’s most basic right: the right to life and to defend that life when threatened. It is a precedent that leaves millions of rural Nigerians vulnerable and helpless in the face of violent aggression, especially by armed Fulani herdsman men
Mr. Jackson’s case, by all credible accounts, is one of self-defence in the truest sense. Faced with an armed herdsman, Jackson did what any reasonable person might do under such terrifying circumstances: he defended himself. The Supreme Court’s expectation that Jackson should have simply fled after disarming his attacker is not only detached from the brutal realities of violent encounters in rural Nigeria, but it also undermines the very essence of the law of self-defence. As Mr. Ozekhome rightly stated that the assumption that Jackson had a “safe opportunity to flee” is speculative and dangerously naive. It imposes an unrealistic burden on citizens who find themselves in immediate mortal danger.
Even more concerning is the procedural violation that accompanied this judgment. The Supreme Court reportedly delivered its ruling 167 days after arguments were concluded far beyond the constitutionally allowed maximum of 90 days. This is not a minor oversight; it is a serious breach that calls into question the validity of the entire judgment. How can justice be served when the nation’s highest court disregards the very constitutional timelines it is meant to uphold? This delay alone should be grounds for a legal review or outright nullification of the verdict.
This case also cannot be divorced from its broader sociopolitical context. The victim, Ardo Bawuro, was a Fulani herdsman; the condemned, a Christian farmer. For years, Nigeria has been racked by violent clashes between nomadic herders and sedentary farming communities, often along ethno-religious lines. In such a deeply divided and volatile climate, the judiciary must take extra care to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. The court’s decision has instead deepened the perception that certain lives are more protected than others; an extremely dangerous narrative in an already fragmented nation.
Ozekhome’s condemnation is not just an individual opinion. it is a principled stand in defence of constitutionalism, equity, and humanity. When the courts send a message that a man defending his life on his own land deserves to die, they are not enforcing justice; they are enabling impunity for aggressors and criminalising survival. If Sunday Jackson is executed, it will not be justice served, but justice perverted. Such a ruling has the chilling effect of discouraging vulnerable Nigerians from defending themselves even in lifethreatening situations.
It is imperative, therefore, that this judgment be revisited. Nigeria’s legal community, civil society, CAN and all citizens of conscience must rally against this travesty. The Supreme Court must not be immune to criticism or correction. Justice must be rooted in realism, not judicial abstraction. To uphold this verdict is to legitimise violence against the weak and to punish courage in the face of terror. This is not the justice Nigeria needs. It is the injustice the nation must reject.
Comments
Post a Comment