By Charles Igwe
Senior Advocate of Nigeria and constitutional lawyer, Mike Ozekhome, has strongly criticised the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the death sentence of Sunday Jackson, a Christian farmer from Adamawa State, who was convicted of killing a Fulani herdsman, Ardo Bawuro, during a violent altercation on his farm more than a decade ago.
The apex court’s ruling, delivered on March 7, 2025, affirmed the judgment of the lower courts, which sentenced Mr Jackson to death by hanging. The case has drawn widespread public outrage, with many, including Mr Jackson’s defence team, maintaining that the killing occurred in self-defence.
Ozekhome, who is also currently representing Nnamdi Kanu—the embattled leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)—in a separate terrorism case, said the Supreme Court’s position raises grave concerns about the justice system’s understanding of self-defence and the realities of life-threatening encounters.
“The court held that, having disarmed the herdsman and seized the dagger, Mr Jackson no longer faced imminent danger and should have fled instead of retaliating,” Ozekhome explained. “That reasoning, however, is divorced from the harsh reality of such violent confrontations.”
He argued that the justices failed to appreciate the chaotic and instinctive nature of life-or-death struggles. “The idea that someone in the heat of a sudden and dangerous struggle could calmly disengage and flee is, frankly, unrealistic,” he said.
According to Ozekhome, Jackson had consistently maintained that the fatal stabbing happened during a physical altercation when he was attacked on his farmland. He insisted that the killing was not premeditated, but rather an instinctive act of self-preservation.
“Jackson’s response was immediate and reactive. He didn’t go looking for trouble; he acted under the pressure of a direct threat to his life,” Ozekhome added. “The Supreme Court’s judgment appears to ignore that vital context and instead builds a convenient, sterile narrative that does not reflect how real-life violence unfolds.”
The lawyer also faulted the Supreme Court on procedural grounds, alleging a constitutional violation in the timing of its judgment. “The Constitution allows a maximum of 90 days after final arguments for judgment to be delivered. In this case, the verdict came 167 days later—well beyond the constitutional limit,” he noted.
