Introduction
The Supreme Court’s decision in Sunday Jackson v The State (2025) LPELR-80692 (SC) raises important questions on the interpretation and application of the plea of self-defence in Nigerian law. The majority decision of the court upheld the Appellant’s conviction for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221(a) of the Penal Code Cap. 98 Laws of Adamawa State 1997.
However, the dissenting judgment by Ogunwumiju JSC calls for an examination of the practical and legal expectations placed on individuals defending themselves from life-threatening attacks. This article analyses the court’s reasoning, the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision on the defence of self-defence, and explores the broader human rights and policy concerns it raises.
Legal Framework for Self-Defence in Nigeria
The Black’s Law Dictionary defines self-defence as the use of force to protect oneself, one’s family, or one’s property from a real or threatened attack. Section 33(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides: “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, to such extent and in such circumstance as are permitted by the law, of such force as is reasonably necessary – (a) for the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the defence of property.”
Section 60 of the Penal Code Act (applicable in Northern Nigeria) states:
“Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions hereinafter contained, to defend
- his own body and the body of any other person against any 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 the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.”
Section 62 of the Penal Code Act, which provides the general limitation on the right of private defence, states, “The right to private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.” In Uwaekweghinya v The State (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt. 930) 27 SC, the court held that:
“where a person kills another in defence of himself, such a 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 the Penal Code, and a successful defence of self-defence leads to the discharge and acquittal of the accused person.”
Similarly, in Ekpoudo v State (2021) LPELR-52826 (CA) the court held that a person may use force in self-defence if they reasonably believe that they may face imminent danger. For the plea of self-defence to be successful, the following conditions must be satisfied:
- The accused must be free from fault in bringing about the encounter.
- 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.
- There must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat.
- The accused used reasonable force to defend himself.
See the cases of Rasheed Aminu v The State (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 481; Mohammed v The State (2019) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1661) 98 at 101; Baridam v State (1994) CLR 1(C) (SC); and Jeremiah v The State (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1320) 248.
Facts of the Case (Sunday Jackson v The State)
At the High Court of Adamawa State, the Appellant, Sunday Jackson, was charged and arraigned for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death contrary to Section 221(a) of the Penal Code Cap. 98 Laws of Adamawa State, 1997.
According to the Appellant’s confessional statement, he was attacked by the deceased while working on his farm. They wrestled, the Appellant disarmed the deceased and used the dagger to stab the deceased three times in the throat, leading to his death. At trial, the Appellant relied on the defence of self-defence. However, the trial court convicted and sentenced the Appellant to death for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death.
Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, but both courts upheld the trial court’s judgment.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s judgment; the Appellants’ appeal failed and was dismissed. See Jackson v State (2022) LPELR-57955 (CA). The court, relying heavily on the Appellant’s confessional statement where he stated that he stabbed the deceased with the “intention to kill him,” found that once the Appellant disarmed the deceased, he was no longer in danger, and he could have run away. The court held that the force used by the Appellant was no longer necessary or proportionate.
The Supreme Court’s Majority Decision
Delivering the lead judgment, Idris JSC held that the Appellants’ actions amounted to a reprisal or revenge attack, not self-defence or provocation. The court, citing Kalgo v State (2021) LPELR-53077 (SC), emphasised that the defences of provocation and self-defence are mutually exclusive and cannot be pleaded together. The court held that stabbing the deceased three times in the throat, especially after he was disarmed, was unjustifiable.
It concluded that the defences presented by the Appellant “only serve to reinforce the prosecution’s case, proving beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant committed the crime for which he was charged.” Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the Court of Appeal and the trial court, dismissing the appeal.
Dissenting Judgment of Ogunwumiju, JSC
Ogunwumiju, JSC delivered a compelling dissenting judgment that provides a more realistic interpretation of the defence of self-defence. The judgment of Ogunwumiju, JSC offers a more realistic perspective on how individuals react in life-threatening situations, which is crucial for the future development of jurisprudence on self-defence.
His Lordship argued that expecting a person who has already been stabbed twice and is still under attack to simply run away is unrealistic. His Lordship argued that the Appellant was entitled to defend himself from an assailant who trespassed on his land and initiated the attack.
His Lordship further stated that stabbing the deceased three times in the heat of the moment, particularly after being attacked, does not automatically equate to “malice aforethought,” the main ingredient of culpable homicide punishable with death. Key takeaways from His Lordship’s judgement include:
- The guiding principles of self-defence are necessity and proportion.
- In self-defence, the mens rea is the intention to kill in order to save oneself, and the actus reus is the action itself.
- The law does not expect a person who is under violent attack to analyse in the heat of the moment whether their response is surgically precise or legally proportionate.
- Having been stabbed twice and still under attack, the Appellant was not under a duty to flee if escape was not safe or certain. A person who has already been stabbed and is still under threat should not be expected to weigh their options mid-assault rationally.
- Stabbing the deceased multiple times may have been the only available means of ensuring survival in the chaos of the confrontation.
- The Appellant’s intention to kill his attacker at that material time cannot negate self-defence; rather, it is an essential element when the threat to life is imminent. The intent to kill can exist simultaneously with the intention to preserve one’s own life. This is distinct from murder, where intent arises from premeditation and malice.
His Lordship, relying on Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and citing Uwaekweghinya v The State (supra) and Njoku v State (1993) LPELR-2041, reinforced that proportionality must be viewed with the factual context, not in abstract legal theory.
Impact of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Jackson v State (supra) on Self-Defence
The majority decision in Jackson v State (supra) potentially narrows the scope of self-defence. By rigidly applying the “no safe retreat” principle even after an attacker is momentarily disarmed and by dismissing the context of violent struggle, the court’s judgment places a high burden on victims of violent attacks. This could inadvertently prevent individuals from defending themselves effectively for fear that any perceived force, even in a life-or-death situation, could lead to a murder conviction.
Even when a threat might still reasonably exist, the Supreme Court’s emphasis on disengagement appears to contradict the practical realities of violent encounters. Key issues raised by the majority decision include:
- Narrowing the Scope of Self-Defence
The court’s judgment seems to suggest that using a knife against a stick-wielding attacker is automatically disproportionate. By interpreting the Appellants’ actions as revenge rather than survival, the Supreme Court has arguably narrowed the defence of self-defence. The court overlooked the severity of the injuries the Appellant had already sustained and the continued threat he faced. Such a narrow interpretation of self-defence may deter genuine victims from defending themselves, particularly when retreat is not a realistic or safe option.
- Rigid Application of Legal Requirements
The decision adopts a strictly legalistic view of self-defence, disregarding the unpredictability of real-life violent encounters. It does not fully consider whether escape was truly a viable option in the heat of the moment.
- Overreliance on Confessional Statements.
The court placed significant weight on the Appellants’ confessional statement, particularly his admission that he intended to kill, consequently overlooking the context of self-defence. However, Ogunwumiju, JSC, rightly observed that intent to kill does not defeat self-defence when it is the only means of preventing further attack or averting death.
Broader Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision: Human Rights and Public Policy Concerns
The Supreme Court’s majority decision in Jackson v The State (supra) has sparked considerable debate, particularly its implications on the plea of self-defence, raising constitutional and policy issues. This decision sets a dangerous precedent by expecting overly rational behaviour from persons in life-threatening circumstances.
Human rights activists,[1] including Mike Ozekhome, SAN, have criticised the court’s judgment. Ozekhome, SAN, in criticising the court’s judgment, stated that the decision constructs “a simplistic mental narrative that does not align with the raw, chaotic nature of real-life violence.”[2] He also stated that the position of the court “has been widely criticised as unrealistic and disconnected from the realities of violent encounters.”[3]
He further highlighted a constitutional breach in the case as the judgment was delivered 167 days after arguments were concluded, contrary to the 90-day limit set by Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The court’s decision raises critical questions about the balance between lawful defence, proportionality and the state’s duty to protect individuals. It also highlights the ongoing tension between legal principles and the complexities of human self-preservation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s majority decision appears to have narrowed the scope of the plea of self-defence. It presents a pivotal moment for the interpretation of self-defence in Nigeria as it places an unrealistic burden on individuals to retreat or restrain themselves even under a violent, life-threatening attack.
While the majority decision emphasizes a strict interpretation of disengagement and proportionality, the dissenting judgment offers a more real-world perspective of the instincts that govern human behaviour during a violent attack and a constitutionally aligned interpretation of the law, prioritising the right to life.
The case reveals a need for the judiciary and perhaps the legislature to reassess how self-defence is applied, especially in rural areas and high-risk environments where individuals may be left to protect themselves without immediate access to security forces. The law must strike a fair balance between maintaining public order and recognising the natural right to preserve one’s life in the face of unlawful aggression.
[1] Uthman Salami, “Activists fault Adamawa’s farmer death sentence for killing herder,” Punch Newspaper 18 March 2025 <https://punchng.com/activists-fault-adamawas-farmer-death-sentence-for-killing-herder/> accessed 24 June 2025
[2] Victor Olorunfemi, “Ozekhome slams Supreme Court for affirming death sentence on Adamawa Christian farmer who defended himself against killer herdsman,” Peoples Gazette 4 June 2025 <https://gazettengr.com/ozekhome-slams-supreme-court-for-affirming-death-sentence-on-adamawa-christian-farmer-who-defended-himself-against-killer-herdsman/> accessed 24 June 2025
[3] Ibid