By EMMANUEL OGEBE

Sunday Jackson was in his 20s when he was attacked on his farm by a Fulani herdsman and his cattle in 2015.

Despite defending himself and stabbing the attacker back with his own knife, Jackson was sentenced to death by hanging six years later and finally condemned to die by hanging by the Supreme Court on March 7, 2025.

Below are some of the fundamental ways in which the legal system failed him:

The Director of Public Prosecution of Adamawa state should have advised against prosecution of Jackson because ?private defense? is a legal right under the penal code (state law). Section 59 provides: "Nothing is an offence which is done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence."

The Director of Public Prosecution should have advised against prosecution of Jackson because the death of the Fulani herdsman was not ?deprivation? of his life under the constitution since it occurred during defense of property and life (federal law). The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) Section 33(2)(a) states: "A person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his life in contravention of this section if he dies as a result of the use of force to such extent as is reasonably necessary, (a) for the defense of any person from unlawful violence or for the defense of property."

The Director of Public Prosecution should at worst have charged Jackson with manslaughter (culpable homicide not punishable with death) under Adamawa state penal code which prescribes this for when excessive force is used in self defense. Section 222(2) provides that: "Culpable homicide is not punishable with death if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation, or causes the death in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence.?

The Attorney General of Adamawa state should not have kept him in prison for years awaiting trial only to convict him after six years. Mr. Jackson was held in pre-trial detention for years without bail or trial, a gross violation of Article 14(3)(c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the right to be tried within a reasonable time or released. Similarly, Article 7(1)(d) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples? Rights affirms the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court. Jackson?s prolonged incarceration, in this context, is not just a domestic justice failure but an international human rights violation. It was a case in which the facts were not disputed and only two witnesses other than Jackson were called. Trial should have taken three days not six years.

The Attorney General of Adamawa state should not have charged Jackson with two stabs only to argue in the final written address, without modifying the charge, that it was three stabs.

The High Court Judge should not have erroneously accepted the written address of the AG claiming three stabs over and above the actual charge sheet which expressly said two stabs. It should be noted that the medical examiner?s report never stated the number of stabs!

The High Court Judge should at worst have substituted and convicted Jackson of a charge of culpable homicide not punishable with death (manslaughter) instead of falsely claiming she had no choice than to sentence him to death

The high court judge should have delivered her judgement within 90 days as required by the constitution instead of the 167 days delay that adversely prejudiced Jackson?s case.

The high court judge should not have claimed Jackson could or should have run knowing he was stabbed by his assailant as the law expressly allows fight not flight.

Given all of the above, the court of appeal should not have reaffirmed the lower court?s death sentence.

The court of appeal should not have evaluated provocation as an alternative defense when they could more appropriately have downgraded the charge to culpable homicide not punishable with death (manslaughter) at worst (The dissenting presiding justice Ogunwumiju did an excellent evaluation and concluded still that Jackson deserved full vindication and not even a manslaughter conviction.)

The Supreme Court should have noted the inconsistency between the two stabs charge on the charge sheet as noted on page two of its judgment and its later reference to three stabs on page 13 and granted Jackson the benefit of the doubt.

The Supreme Court could have downgraded the conviction at worst to manslaughter which carries imprisonment and not death sentence.

The Supreme Court could have freed Jackson on the basis of self defense since his charge and conviction was for two stabs not three which the court considered excessive but which was erroneously inserted by the high court.

The Supreme Court should not have ruled that provocation and self-defense are mutually exclusive or incompatible defenses because Section 222(2) of the Penal Code further provides that: "Culpable homicide is not punishable with death if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation, or causes the death in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence.? The law expressly states they are related defenses and enjoy the same benefit of not being punishable by death.

The courts in toto should not have claimed excessive force since the assailant who it could reasonably be assumed intended to kill Jackson was killed to prevent that objective. In mortal combat, death of one party is a logical likely outcome and should therefore not be considered excessive force.

From the foregoing, it is palpable that the system disastrously failed 34 year old Sunday Jackson, who after spending 10 years in prison for defending himself against a Fulani herdsman attacker is now to lose his life at the hands of the state who should have protected him.

His only remaining hope is for a pardon or commutation by the Governor of Adamawa, Adamu Fintiri. However even if this is done, Jackson has already lost 10 years of his life and all Nigerians have lost a significant amount of their right to self-defense from the unfortunate precedent created by the case of Sunday Jackson v State.

It is for this reason that we?re seeking the Supreme Court to invite Attorneys General of the federation to address it through amicus briefs on the constitutional questions in this case as well as the inconsistencies and violations thereof that would result in the unlawful death of a Nigerian citizen at the hands of the state. Should a man die for an act which is not a crime under both federal and state law, nor punishable by death, even if a crime, and condemned to death for ?excessive? three stabs when he was only charged with two?

The Supreme Court?s decision in Nasiru Bello v. A. G Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 828 exemplifies the utility of amicus briefs in cases of national significance. In that matter, Oyo State's flawed action in executing a convict despite a pending appeal led to landmark pronouncements on due process.

Similarly, amici, including State Attorneys-General, the Nigerian Bar Association, the National Human Rights Commission, and international observers, can provide diverse insights and ensure that the Court benefits from a broader understanding of how legal theory intersects with lived experience.

Given that private defense is an intrinsic individual right, it is essential for all federating units to weigh in on how this right is viable and available for Nigerian citizens especially as over 612,000+ people were killed in one year and the army only killed 6000+ terrorists in two years ? less than 0.5% of the civilian casualties. More so, there are more Nigerians on deathrow for defending against Fulani attackers than there are Fulani attackers on deathrow for killing thousands of Nigerians.

?Emmanuel Ogebe, Esq is a key member of the Save Sunday Jackson Coalition.

Update news