Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mike Ozekhome, has sharply criticised the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that upheld the death sentence of Sunday Jackson, an Adamawa farmer who killed a herdsman during a struggle on his farmland.
Ozekhome described the court’s decision as disconnected from the harsh realities of violent confrontation and accused the justices of applying abstract reasoning to a life-threatening situation.
The apex court on March 7 affirmed a lower court’s judgment sentencing Jackson to death by hanging for killing a Fulani herdsman, Ardo Bawuro, in what the defence described as a clear case of self-defence. The incident reportedly occurred over a decade ago during a scuffle on Jackson’s farm.
Reacting to the judgment, Ozekhome argued that the Supreme Court’s conclusion undermines Nigerians’ right to defend themselves in dangerous situations. He questioned the logic behind the court’s belief that Jackson should have fled after disarming his attacker.
“The facts surrounding the case raised significant questions about fairness, judicial reasoning, and the fundamental right to self-defence,” 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 dismissed that interpretation as not only “unrealistic” but also “disconnected from the realities of violent encounters.”
Ozekhome pointed out that Jackson’s story has been consistent throughout, that he reacted in panic to protect his life during a dangerous physical altercation. He emphasised that the stabbing happened in the middle of a heated fight, with no guaranteed path to safety.
“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,” Ozekhome said.
“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.”
Beyond the substantive issues of self-defence, Ozekhome also faulted the court’s procedural conduct. He stated that the apex court breached constitutional provisions by delivering its judgment more than five months after hearing the final arguments.
READ MORE: Court Summons Akpabio, Nwaebonyi Over Sexual Harassment, Defamation Claims Against Natasha
According to the constitution, the court is required to conclude rulings within 90 days of final submissions. Ozekhome claimed that this delay, 167 days in total, renders the judgment defective.
The Supreme Court’s decision has triggered public backlash, especially in Christian-majority regions of the North, where many see the ruling as unjust and religiously biased.
Ozekhome is currently serving as legal counsel to Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), and has remained vocal on issues of constitutional justice and human rights in Nigeria.
Follow the Parallel Facts channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaCQSAoHgZWiDjR3Kn2E
