By

The reaffirmation of the death sentence imposed on Adamawa State farmer, Sunday Jackson, by the Supreme Court last month (judgment was delivered on March 7) highlights the ambiguity surrounding the Nigerian concept of substantial justice. Many Nigerians who went through that judgment reasonably believe that the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to expand the country’s jurisdiction of criminal law as it relates to issues of self-defence and provocation, amongst others.

The fait accompli to which Nigerians are faced is that a citizen carrying out lawful duty on his farm has been sentenced to death because he engaged in an altercation with an assailant who attacked him on the farm but who was subsequently overpowered and killed by the farmer. That scenario is basically true at all times, despite the court’s invocation of legal technicalities that eventually changed the picture to portray the farmer, even though attacked on his farm, as displaying retaliation, rather than self-defence, against his assailant. Beyond the courts’ application of legalese that, to many people, undermined real justice, the judgment again reminds all Nigerians of the failure of government in finding lasting solution to the decades-old problem between cattle herders and farmers, which has resulted, and still resulting into avoidable killings of innocent citizens, in addition to aggravating the country’s food insecurity.

What happened lately in Edo State, where 16 persons were lynched on suspicion of being kidnappers, is a clear testimony that failure of government at all levels, especially on the issue of security, poses more threat to a united Nigeria, perhaps more than any other single cause. Although divergent sentiments have been expressed, the fact that many people consider the verdict a miscarriage of justice should be a matter of grave concern, given that justice should not only be done, it should be manifestly seen to be done. The case of Sunday Jackson does not meet this standard, unfortunately. For that reason, the case, even though adjudicated upon by the highest court in the land, deserves a review, at least politically.

As a prelude, Jackson, a farmer, was arraigned on one charge of culpable homicide, punishable with death, contrary to Section 221 (a) of the Penal Code Law of Adamawa State. By the combined provisions of Section 221 (a) and (b) of the stated law, culpable homicide is punished with death if the act by which the death is caused was done with the intention of causing death. To exonerate himself, Jackson relied on the defence of self-defence, but the trial court found him guilty, nonetheless. His appeals to the appellate courts were dismissed as they concurred with the court of the first instance. There were no eyewitnesses, but what the courts relied upon, as deduced from the various decisions, was Jackson’s “confessional statement” that read in part as follows: “On Tuesday 27/01/15 at about 1110 hrs., I left my village and was cutting thatching grasses in a bush located in Kodomti Village of Numan LGA when the deceased, Alh. Buba Bawura … attacked me after losing sight of some persons [he was allegedly] pursuing for killing his cattle. He attacked me in frustration and wanted to stab me with a dagger, then we engaged in a wrestling encounter. I succeeded in seizing the dagger from him, which I used to stab him thrice in his throat. When the deceased collapsed and was rolling down in pool of his blood, I took heels and escaped.” Acknowledging that self-defence is a complete defence to a charge of murder or manslaughter, the Supreme Court, however, added that for a successful plea of self-defence, the following conditions must co-exist: a) the accused must be free from fault in bringing about the encounter; b) there must be present an impending peril to life or of great bodily harm, either real or apparent as to create the honest belief of an existing necessity; c) there must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat; and d) there must have been a necessity for taking life. Examining Jackson’s confessional statement, the Supreme Court found that his defence fulfilled the first and second conditions but failed to meet the others. According to the court, having disarmed the deceased, Jackson ought to have retreated, thereby obviating the necessity for taking life. It further held that Jackson had acted beyond the parameters of self-defence by stabbing the deceased in the throat multiple times. More so, Jackson admitted in his written testimony that he stabbed the deceased with the intent to kill him. To this end, his action was perceived as retaliatory rather than defensive. The court disregarded his oral testimony for being inconsistent with his (earlier) confessional statement. Completely ruling out self-defence, the court suo moto considered whether the defence of provocation availed Jackson. Again, the decision was negative. For the defence of provocation to succeed, it must be shown that the death was caused: a) in the heat of passion; b) by grave sudden provocation as to deprive the accused of self-control; and c) before there is time for passion to cool. The court held that the case passed the first and second requirements but fell short of the last one. It reached this conclusion based on the material fact that Jackson proceeded to excessively stab the deceased despite having disarmed him.

Interestingly, the judgment was split, with the majority holding that Jackson was guilty of murder, while the presiding justice upheld Jackson’s argument in its entirety. Recognising, however, that her dissent held no sway, Justice Helen Ogunwumiju recommended Jackson “as a proper candidate for the Governor of Adamawa State to exercise his prerogative of mercy.” The right to use force in defence of oneself or another against an unjustifiable attack has existed from time immemorial. Section 33(2) of the Nigerian constitution guarantees every citizen the right to defend and preserve his life from imminent danger, even if it means taking the life of the attacker. Therefore, a person is justified in using reasonable force to resist anyone who intends to commit a felony against him or any other person in his presence. In Okonkwo V. The State, the deceased entered the house of the appellant at midnight with a dagger. The appellant caught hold of the deceased after the deceased tried to stab him and then called out to alarm other people. People came, held the deceased down, and beat him to death. The Supreme Court held that the plea of self-defence was valid as there was a reasonable apprehension of death by the appellant. One of the important limitations placed on the exercise of the right of self-defence is the requirement that a person who is unlawfully assaulted use only such force as is reasonably necessary to make an effectual defence against the assault. What harm or force is reasonably necessary is invariably a question of fact.

To be continued tomorrow.

In this article