SELF DEFENCE IN NIGERIAN LAW: CASE STUDY OF SUNDAY JACKSON

Abstract

Self-defence plays a crucial role in criminal law, but in Nigeria, its implementation often fails to align with the actual circumstances. This article delves into the case of Sunday Jackson, a farmer who found himself in a deadly confrontation and invoked self-defence, a scenario that initially led to his death sentence but later an executive pardon. The analysis addresses the judgement and argues that it is unfair and completely unfounded in terms of logic and conclusion. By examining this case in the context of Nigeria’s criminal justice system and the overall rural security landscape, it becomes clear that the existing definitions of ‘reasonable force’ and ‘imminent threat’ do not adequately address the challenges faced by communities lacking sufficient state protection. Through a legal lens and comprehensive evaluation, this article highlights systematic flaws that could wrongly criminalize individuals acting out of survival instinct and erode trust in the justice system. Ultimately, the analysis advocates for reforms aiming to clarify the boundaries of self-defence, and incorporate legal interpretations tailored to specific contexts. These reforms are crucial in ensuring that self-defence continues to shield vulnerable groups without inadvertently leading to unjust convictions.

Introduction

Throughout the evolution of criminal law, self-protection has stood as a fundamental concept. It is one of the oldest principles in criminal law. At its heart lies a simple truth: the inherent right of every human being to safeguard their existence when faced with authentic and immediate threats. The principle of self-defence is acknowledged within the Nigerian legal framework right under both the Penal Code and the Criminal Code, yet its application does not always reflect the realities of ordinary people. The case of Sunday Jackson is a striking example: a man who was sentenced to death, later pardoned, after claiming he acted only to save his own life. This case strikes debates and challenges us to rethink what justice should look like in situations of survival.

A crucial problem arises when we consider the mismatch between legal principles and their real-life application. In Nigeria, the legal framework permits the use of force in life threatening situations but falls short in providing concrete guidelines for utilizing this principle in situations marked by uncertainty. The case sparked a broad debate, because it exposed the long-standing problem of Nigerian court’s interpretation of terms such as “justified use of force”, “imminent danger”, and fear in the context of insecurity and lack of state protection. This article examines the Supreme Court’s decision on self-defence in the Sunday Jackson’s case, highlighting its inconsistencies and pitfalls and the ruling within the context of justice and public trust in the criminal justice system.

Legal and Conceptual Framework of Self-Defence in Nigeria

In Nigeria, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, established in 1999(as amended), serves as the country’s supreme law. Other laws get their authority from it and it is also the main source of Nigerian Criminal Law. Chapter 4 outlines various fundamental rights for individuals and the protection of these rights.

Other main sources are the Criminal Code Act and the Penal Code Law. The Criminal Code is used in Southern Nigeria, while the Penal Code applies to Norther Nigeria. Both codes define various offenses and criminal acts to help regulate the actions of individuals.

Judicial precedents, which comes from court decisions that clarify difficult parts of existing laws are also important sources of Criminal Law in Nigeria

Self-defence is the protection of one’s property (Section 289 Criminal Code) against some injury attempted by another. This right is recognized on the basis that it constitutes a lawful justification for the use of force in repelling an assault against one’s person (Section 32(3) Criminal Code). In the Penal Code (PC), it is also referred to as private defence (Section 59 Penal Code). In the usual course of law, the use of such force would constitute a criminal offence; however, it is deemed justified under the doctrine of self-defence (John v. The State [2012] 7 NWLR (pt. 1229) 336 C.A).

In Ekpoudo v. The State (2021) LPELR-52826(CA) the Court of Appeal defined self-defence as; “the use of force to protect oneself, one’s family or one’s property from a real or threatened attack”. In general, individuals are considered to have the right to use a reasonable amount of force for self-protection if they genuinely believe they are in imminent physical danger and that employing such force is essential to prevent danger.

As per Section 32(3) of the Criminal Code, a person cannot be held criminally liable for their actions if those actions are necessary to defend against real and unlawful violence directed against them or someone else nearby.

The above section has been reiterated in multiple cases as seen in the case of Uwaekweghinya v. The state (2005) 9 NWLR (PT. 930) 27, where the Supreme Court held that “where a person kills another in defence of himself, such killing is excused and it does not amount to manslaughter under the Criminal code or Culpable Homicide not punishable with death under the Penal Code. The defence of self-defence is a complete defence under the Criminal Code and Penal code and a successful defence of self-defence leads to the discharge and acquittal of the accused person”.

The above position was also reiterated in the case of Lawali v. State (2021) LPELR-56431 where the Court of Appeal opined as follows: “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 shall be returned. 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 in a cruel or unusual manner.”

Essential Elements of Self-Defence

For the plea of self-defence to be successful, the accused must prove certain facts and circumstances. In situations where the accused fails to prove any of these facts, the plea of self-defence fails. These ingredients include, innocence, imminence, proportionality. The rationale behind innocence is so that one should not be allowed to claim self-defence if they are the ones that initiated or started the conflict. Also, for a threat to be imminent, the threat must be certain to happen in order for the use of force to be justified. Nonetheless, once that threat has passed, any further use of force is considered retaliatory and not self-defence. Lastly, the mode of defence should be of equal proportion with the threatened attack. Where the defence is greater or disproportionate with the threatened attack, the plea of self-defence fails.

The above elements have received judicial blessings as they are the same under the Criminal Code and Penal Code and have also been reiterated in a plethora of cases as seen in the case of Mohamed v. State (2020) LPELR-50919 (CA) where the court of appeal held that:

“The defence of self-defence is clearly a child of necessity. It is a defence that is not pleaded as a matter of course, but one in which the defendant is expected to establish that he was at the time of the killing in reasonable apprehension of death to himself or grievous harm and that it was necessary at the time to use force which resulted in the death of the deceased in
order to preserve his life. As an important aspect of the force used by the defendant must be shown to be proportionate to the force used or imminently threatened against him and
reasonable in the circumstances in which it is used. The defence of self-defence, of course is not available where the person attacked used a greater degree of force than was necessary in
repelling attack.”

Case Study: Sunday Jackson V The State (Sc/Cr/1026/2022)

The Appellant, Sunday Jackson, a local farmer from Adamawa State, was arraigned on a one count charge of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221(a) of the Penal Code CAP 98 Laws of Adamawa State 1977. On January 27, 2015, in a bush within the village area of Kodomti in Numan Local Government Area of Adamawa State, the Appellant was alleged to have caused the death of a Fulani herdsman, Ardo Bawuro, by stabbing him multiple times on the neck, causing his death.

In his testimony in court, the Appellant elaborated that he was working on his farm when the deceased arrived with his cattle, inquiring about certain people whom he alleged to be pursuing for killing his cattle. When the Appellant denied seeing them, the deceased drove his cattle into the Appellant’s farm. When the Appellant attempted to drive the cattle away, the deceased attacked him with a knife. The Appellant claimed he ran and shouted for help, but was stabbed by the deceased on the back of his head and left leg. During the struggle, he managed to seize the knife from the deceased, who then picked up a stick. The Appellant then stabbed the deceased thrice on his neck, who subsequently died.

Despite Jackson’s plea of self-defence, the trial court in Adamawa State and subsequently the Court of Appeal, rejected his argument and found him guilty of murder under Section 221 of the Penal Code. The Supreme Court, in affirming this decision, concluded that the Appellant’s defence of self-defence failed because, although he succeeded in disarming the deceased, he exceeded the bounds of self-defence by stabbing the deceased multiple times on the throat, causing his death where there was no further imminent danger.

Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Decision

In alignment with the views expressed by Honourable Justice Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JSC, the sole dissenter among her esteemed colleagues, it is contented that the appellant ought to have been acquitted on the basis of self- defence. This criticism primarily targets the Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation of the concept of self-defence, especially when considering the specific circumstances of this case and its consistency with the principle of self-defence.

The court’s interpretation of imminent threat and reasonable force/proportionality generated considerable controversy. While it acknowledged that self-defence is a legitimate defence, it found that Jackson only partially met the legal requirements. The ruling indicated that, although Jackson had not provoked the victim and was in danger, he did not retreat after taking possession of the victim’s weapon. The court argued that once Jackson possessed the knife, he was no longer under immediate threat and should therefore have fled instead of retaliating with deadly force. This view was widely criticized as unrealistic and detached from real world circumstances.

It is fair to say that the absurdity of this judgement lies not in its violation of the law, but in its radical distortion, which departs entirely from justice as it places the law above justice. On whether the force was proportionate to the threat offered, the court erred when it stated that it was excessive. When applied to the circumstances of this case, the appellant unequivocally stated that Section 60 of the Penal Code stipulates that “every person has a right to defend his own body against an offence affecting the human body, the property whether movable or immovable of himself or of any other person against any act which is an offence falling under criminal trespass or an attempt to commit criminal trespass. This right has received judicial blessing in the case of Abadallable v. Borno Native Authority (1963) LPELR-15471 (SC), Edoko v. State (2015) LPELR-24402(SC).

Assuming without conceding that Jackson employed excessive force in a moment of heightened emotion, Section 222(2) of the Penal Code indicates that in instances where death results from the good faith use of excessive force in self-defence, the appropriate charge should be manslaughter rather than murder. The court’s dismissal of this factor raises concerns that the court undermines the pursuit of a fair and equitable judgement.

Suggestions

The decision of the Supreme Court in this case has reflected the outdatedness of some aspects of the Nigerian legal system which continually ignores the evolution of legal standards in other countries. Nigerian courts continue to cling to outdated colonial-era concepts that have largely been modified or abandoned in their countries of origin. For example, some US states recognize self-defence; Canada recognizes psychological trauma in violent acts; and the UK recognizes reasonable fear, even when justified.

There is need to expressly recognise the psychological impact of threat across the relevant statues on self-defence in Nigeria. By this reform, judgement becomes more realistic and would encourage expert psychological evidence to show the mental state of an accused person at the time of the act. Reactions caused by fear, panic responses, and survival instincts should be admissible in determining whether force used was proportionate. Also, Judges should be trained in handling cases involving trauma, and criminal law should allow more flexibility when self-defence is proven but the use of force under life-threatening circumstances seems excessive.

Furthermore, the Nigerian criminal justice system should explicitly consider contexts in self-defence cases. The decision of the Supreme Court shows that it also failed to acknowledge the history of farmers and herdsmen violent clashes that still subsists within the Northern rural areas in Nigeria. Condemning an individual for defending himself on their own property worsens public fear and distrust of the justice system, particularly in these rural regions where state security is hardly accessible. The lack of state security (including slow police response due to distance and poor road access) can influence the reaction of an individual under immediate threat/danger. The law should evolve to recognise when survival depends on personal actions and not state intervention.

CONCLUSION

Self-defence is not an excuse to all violence or a licence to kill. It goes beyond being a concept and principle in criminal law. Instead, it is a right that prevents miscarriage of justice and helps stop innocent people from being punished unfairly for surviving. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that justice must not only be done but justice must be seen to have been done. However, in Sunday Jackson’s case, it appears neither was.
This case reflects the state of Nigerian justice system and notes that legal reform in Nigeria is overdue. Until the law recognises the need to interpret self-defence cases with psychological and contextual impact, more Nigerians may find themselves forced to choose between dying in silence or living as convicts or even dying by death sentence.

REFERENCE(S):

Cases

Abadallable v Borno Native Authority (1963) LPELR-15471 (SC).

Edoko v State (2015) LPELR-24402 (SC).

Ekpoudo v State (2021) LPELR-52826 (CA).

John v State (2012) 7 NWLR (Pt 1229) 336 (CA).

Lawali v State (2021) LPELR-56431 (CA).

Mohamed v State (2020) LPELR-50919 (CA).

Sunday Jackson v State SC/CR/1026/2022 (SC).

Uwaekweghinya v State (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt 930) 227 (SC).

Legislation

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

Criminal Code Act 1990 (Cap C38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1900), ss 32(3), 289

Penal Code Act 1960 (Cap P3, Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963), ss59, 60, 221(a), 222(2), 222(4)

Secondary Sources (Websites, Blogs and Online Materials)

Akpan S, ‘Sunday Jackson is a victim of a miscarriage of justice’ TheCable (9 March 2025) <https://www.thecable.ng/sunday-jackson-is-a-victim-of-a-miscarriage-of-justice/> accessed 9 January 2026.

Esezobor I, ‘SELF-DEFENCE 2nd Semester’ (Scribd)
<https://www.scribd.com/document/818074215/SELF-DEFENCE-2nd-Semester> accessed 9 January 2026.

‘Justice Denied? The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Sunday Jackson’s Self-Defence Case’ ABC News Nigeria (4 June 2025)<https://abcnews.com.ng/justice-denied-the-supremecourts-judgment-in-sunday-jacksons-self-defence-case/> accessed 9 January 2026.

‘Whether the defence of provocation and self-defence are mutually exclusive’ LawPavilion Blog (11 June 2025)<https://lawpavilion.com/blog/whether-the-defence-of-provocation-andself-defence-are-mutually-exclusive/#google_vignette> accessed 9 January 2026.