Reactions have continued to trail the death sentence slammed on a farmer, Sunday Jackson, from Adamawa State, by the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
Jackson, it was reported, allegedly acted in self-defense against a Fulani herdsman
DAILY POST recalls that the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of a High Court sentencing him to death for killing an attacker in self-defence.
Jackson has consistently maintained that he acted in self-defence when the Fulani herdsman attacked him with a knife while he was working on his farm, adding that during the struggle, he managed to wrest control of the knife and fatally stabbed the attacker, who later died from his injuries.
Despite this, the trial court determined that Jackson should have fled the scene after disarming the herdsman instead of using the weapon against him.
The court convicted him of murder and sentenced him to death by hanging.
This has raised significant concerns about the fairness of the ruling, with many critics arguing that it overlooked the immediate danger Jackson faced.
The case has stirred widespread outrage and intensified discussions on the need for stronger legal protections for individuals who act in self-defense during violent encounters.
DAILY POST reports that the Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN, in the 19 northern states and Abuja condemned the Supreme Court judgment.
A statement by the Chairman of Northern CAN, Rev. John Hayab, described the judgment as a grave travesty of justice and called on Adamawa State Governor, Ahmadu Umaru Fintiri, to grant Jackson a pardon.
“We are shocked and disappointed by the Supreme Court’s judgment, which we believe contradicts the provisions of the Adamawa State Penal Code, Sections 23 and 24.
“We appeal to Governor Fintiri to exercise his prerogative of mercy and pardon Sunday Jackson, who has suffered greatly due to the misinterpretation of the law and the prolonged trial,”; Hayab said.
Reacting to the death sentence by the apex court, the Pene da Bwatiye Youth Wing of Adamawa State, in collaboration with its national body, condemned the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the death sentence, calling on Governor Ahmadu Umaru Fintiri to grant him clemency.
In a statement, President of the Youth Wing of the Bwatiye Development Association, Pwano Jauro, described the ruling as a miscarriage of justice, stressing that Jackson acted in self-defence and urged Governor Fintiri, to intervene and prevent the execution.
“Granting clemency would not only save Jackson’s life but also help maintain the fragile peace between farmers and herders in the Bwatiye kingdom. Section 212 of the Nigerian Constitution empowers the governor to commute sentences or grant pardons,”; the group said.
In like manner, the Gongola People’s Forum appealed to Fintiri to pardon Jackson.
The Chairman of the forum, Mr Markus Gundiri, made the call at a news conference in Yola, the state capital.
Gundiri said: “The constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) designed within its corpus a provision under Section 212, which allows for such a pardon.
“It gives the chief executive of a state the power to exercise his prerogative of mercy to pardon, grant respite to, or remit in whole or part any sentence imposed by the courts.”
Speaking to DAILY POST, the Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Human and Socio-economic Rights, Alex Omotehinse, expressed disappointment over the verdict, saying it signals the loss of hope for the common man.
“This is a clear miscarriage of justice. Jackson should not have been charged with murder – this was a case of self-defence. At the very least, it should have been considered manslaughter.
“Reports indicate that the herder stabbed him twice, and Jackson managed to retrieve the same knife to defend himself, which ultimately led to the herder’s death.
“Everyone is aware of the ongoing clashes between farmers and herders, where, in most cases, it is the farmers who are killed.
“This is one of the rare instances in recent years where a farmer managed to defend himself and survive by overpowering his attacker,”; Omotehinse said.
Also speaking is Emmanuel Ogebe, an international human rights lawyer, who criticised the judgment of the apex court, stating that the world should be alarmed by what he described as very unfortunate precedent.
Ogebe recounted how he took on the case to defend the accused after recognising it as a clear case of self-defence.
“This is really a sad day for Nigerians and their rights to self-defence. In February of 2021, we read in the news about Jackson’s death sentence just as we were coming to Nigeria.
“We flew to Yola and I met with his counsel. He was so poor that it was the Legal Aid Council that helped him.
“So, I looked through a copy of the judgment and on the spot, in that initial review, I saw that there was a 167-day lapse between the close of argument and judgment.
“Our constitution specifically says it has to be within 90 days. Now the Legal Aid Council hadn’t even found it. That is how you know the quality of representation that he (Jackson) had.
“So, Jackson has been failed at every possible level by the system,”; Ogebe said.
In the same vein, William Devlin, a US-based human rights advocate, said that the Nigerian justice system failed Jackson.
According to him, the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Jackson’s death sentence did not last up to three minutes.
“This is a sad day for human rights in Nigeria. Sunday Jackson, by anyone’s estimation, is totally innocent. This man was out farming, minding his business, and the attacker came and a struggle ensued. Of course, this man defended himself. That is what we call self-defence.
“We just wept at the failure of the Nigerian supreme court (to free the man). They had the opportunity to say that this man was totally innocent. But we had the opportunity to meet this humble farmer. Unfortunately, his wife abandoned him. He had been on death row for 10 years,”; Devlin said.
On her part, the Chief Executive Officer of Injustice Is Real, Ngozi Molokwu, condemned the ruling, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove the murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt, which should warrant a review of the sentence imposed by the courts.
“I am deeply saddened by the case of the herdsman and the farmer, and I want to use this opportunity to urge the judiciary to revisit this case.
“Has reasonable doubt been proved here? Has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the farmer was guilty of murder? They relied on his confession. A confession that the police officer took.
“The police officer who was with him when he made the statement, what was the caution he gave the farmer?
“Did he read him his rights? The law says beyond a reasonable doubt. There is doubt as to the caution that was given to the farmer. He could have signed the statement under duress,”; she said.
