The Nigerian Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the death sentence of Sunday Jackson is a damning reflection of a justice system that continues to fail its most vulnerable citizens. For a country already struggling with insecurity, human rights abuses, and a growing distrust in law enforcement, this verdict is yet another dark chapter in Nigeria’s history. It is not just a legal misstep, it is a clear miscarriage of justice, one that has sent shockwaves through human rights communities across the world. The decision has raised concerns about the fairness and impartiality of Nigeria’s judiciary, bringing to light a legal system that often favors the powerful while abandoning those without influence. The weight of this injustice is heavy, and the consequences of allowing such a decision to stand will have far-reaching implications not just for Jackson but for the broader human rights landscape in Nigeria.
Sunday Jackson’s story is one of misfortune, abandonment, and ultimately, systemic failure. A simple farmer from Adamawa State, Jackson was working on his land when he was confronted by Buba Bawuro, a Fulani herdsman. The encounter quickly escalated into a violent struggle. Jackson, outnumbered and unarmed, defended himself in what should have been a clear case of self-preservation. Yet, instead of recognizing his right to defend his life, the Nigerian judiciary has sentenced him to death by hanging. His story echoes the plight of many farmers in rural Nigeria who have been forced to live in constant fear of attacks by armed groups. These farmers have been left to fend for themselves, receiving little to no protection from law enforcement agencies. The decision to sentence Jackson to death despite the circumstances surrounding his case is a grave injustice, one that raises serious questions about the ability of the Nigerian legal system to deliver fair and unbiased rulings.
The trial itself was fraught with irregularities, delays, and questionable proceedings that raise serious doubts about the fairness of the judgment. It took 167 days for a decision to be delivered, well beyond the 90-day constitutional limit for judgments. Such delays in the legal process are not only unconstitutional but also allow for inconsistencies and judicial errors. When judges take months to deliver a verdict, one has to question whether they still remember every detail of the case or if their ruling is influenced by external pressures. In Jackson’s case, the legal process has not only been slow but deeply flawed. The extended delay raises concerns about the integrity of the legal proceedings and whether due process was followed. Judicial inefficiency has long been a problem in Nigeria, and cases like Jackson’s further highlight how procedural lapses can lead to catastrophic consequences for those who do not have the resources to navigate the complexities of the justice system. It is yet another example of how the system disproportionately affects the underprivileged while those with power and connections often escape justice.
The decision of the Supreme Court sends a troubling message that in Nigeria, self-defense is not a right but a crime punishable by death. This is particularly alarming given the widespread attacks on rural communities by armed groups, many of whom operate with impunity. For years, farmers like Jackson have found themselves at the mercy of violent herdsmen who destroy their crops, seize their lands, and in some cases, take their lives. The Nigerian government has done little to protect its citizens from these attacks, yet when a farmer like Jackson fights back to save his own life, he is condemned. This verdict sends the wrong message to the public and creates a dangerous precedent where individuals may feel powerless to protect themselves for fear of being criminalized. If the courts continue to fail in distinguishing between self-defense and premeditated crimes, then innocent people will continue to suffer unjust punishments. The burden of proof in self-defense cases should be thoroughly examined to prevent individuals like Jackson from facing such devastating consequences. The fact that his case was not given the proper consideration it deserved speaks volumes about the gaps in Nigeria’s justice system and the urgent need for reform.
International human rights advocates have expressed outrage over this ruling, calling it an egregious violation of justice. Dr. William Devlin, a US-based human rights advocate, has been among the most vocal critics of the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that it is unfathomable that the highest court in the land would uphold such a ruling when the facts so clearly point to self-defense. Barrister Emmanuel Ogebe, a leading human rights lawyer, has also condemned the decision, pointing out that it represents a wider issue within Nigeria’s legal system, a pattern of punishing citizens for defending themselves while their attackers often go unpunished. The international community has now turned its attention to Nigeria, questioning how such a ruling could be upheld despite the glaring inconsistencies in the case. Human rights organizations have pledged to continue advocating for Jackson, emphasizing that his case is symbolic of the broader human rights crisis in Nigeria. The lack of transparency and accountability in the judiciary has been a long-standing concern, and Jackson’s case only adds to the growing list of injustices that demand urgent attention.
This is not just about Sunday Jackson. His case is a microcosm of a much larger problem, a justice system that disproportionately punishes the weak while protecting the powerful. It highlights the deep-rooted inequalities within Nigeria’s legal framework, where the poor and marginalized rarely receive fair trials. It is a system where technicalities, delays, and judicial bias often determine the fate of the accused rather than the actual facts of the case. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to correct this injustice. It had a moment to reaffirm the fundamental right of every Nigerian to defend their life when faced with imminent danger. Instead, it chose to uphold a deeply flawed ruling, ignoring both the evidence and the broader implications of its decision. By doing so, it has further eroded public trust in Nigeria’s legal system and strengthened the perception that justice in this country is not blind but selectively applied.
Sunday Jackson is now on death row, facing execution for a crime he did not commit. His only hope lies in a clemency appeal to the Governor of Adamawa State. But clemency is not justice, it is merely a last-minute act of mercy in a case where there should have been no need for mercy in the first place. Justice demands that Jackson be exonerated, that the courts recognize his right to self-defense, and that he be allowed to walk free. Anything less is a stain on the conscience of Nigeria’s legal system. If the government and judiciary fail to act, they will continue to lose the confidence of the people they are meant to serve. Cases like this should serve as a wake-up call to those in power that the world is watching and that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
This case also raises pressing questions about the role of the international community in holding Nigeria accountable for its human rights violations. How many more cases like Jackson’s must occur before global organizations step in and demand change. How many more innocent Nigerians must suffer before there is meaningful legal reform. The time for action is now. Nigerians must not remain silent in the face of this grave injustice. The legal community, civil society groups, and human rights organizations must rally behind Jackson and push for systemic reforms that prevent such travesties from happening again. The judiciary must be held accountable for its failures, and a serious conversation must begin about how to ensure that self-defense is recognized and protected as a fundamental right.
Sunday Jackson is more than just one man. He is a symbol of every Nigerian who has been wrongfully convicted, every citizen who has been denied justice, and every individual who has had to defend their life in a country where the rule of law is selectively enforced. His story is a stark reminder that justice is not guaranteed for all but it is a fight worth having.
Stay ahead with the latest news on global innovation, leadership, entrepreneurship, business, and tech. Join us on WhatsApp or Telegram for real-time updates. Have a report or article. Send it to report@theinnovationtimes.com. Follow us on X Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube, Pinterest, and Facebook for more insights and trends.
