The Right to Life and Self-Defence in Nigeria: Lessons from the Sunday Jackson Case
Introduction
The right to life is fundamental and enshrined in both international human rights instruments and the Nigerian Constitution. However, the concept of self-defence complicates this right, particularly when an individual is forced to use lethal force for protection. The recent Supreme Court ruling on the case of Sunday Jackson, who was sentenced to death for killing herdsmen in self-defence, has ignited widespread condemnation from human rights group, some which has termed the judgement of the supreme court as ‘criminalizing self-defence’. This article tends to enlighten the reader on the scope of self-defence and the conditions needed to justify the act.
The Legal Framework of Self-Defence in Nigeria
Under Nigerian law, self-defence is a recognized legal principle that allows an individual to use reasonable force to protect themselves from imminent harm. In section 33 of the 1999 constitution, self defence is a right guaranteed reasonably and necessary for the defence of person and property from unlawful violence. Sections 32(3) of the Criminal Code Act state that a person is not criminally liable for using force, including deadly force, if it is necessary to repel an unlawful attack. Section 59 of the Penal code is also in tandem with the Criminal code. Self-defence should serve as a complete defence to murder charges if the accused can prove that their actions were necessary and reasonable under the circumstances.
However, the law also put limitations to the force required in exercising the right to self-defence which is enshrined in sections 286-288 0f the criminal code and section 62-66 of the Penal code which requires that the force used must be proportionate to the threat faced amongst others.
In the Supreme Court case of Kwagshir v The State (1995) 3 N.W.L.R (Part 386) at P. 651, it was held that four cardinal conditions must exist before the taking of the life of a person is justified on the plea of self-defence. These conditions are:
1) The accused must be free from fault in bringing about the encounter;
2) There must be present an impending peril to life or of great bodily harm real or so apparent as to create honest belief of an existing necessity;
3) There must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat; and
4) There must have been a necessity for taking life.
At the time of writing this article I have not been able to get the Judgement of the Supreme Court but from media sources, the Sunday Jackson case, however, raises concerns about whether the judiciary properly applied this principle before upholding the decision of the trial court.
The Case of Sunday Jackson: A Miscarriage of Justice?
Sunday Jackson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death for killing an armed herdsman who allegedly attacked him. It was stated that cutlass wounds had been inflicted on Sunday Jackson by the aggressor. According to reports, he acted in self-defense, fearing for his life in the face of an imminent threat. Despite this, the trial court found him guilty, and the Supreme Court later upheld the conviction.
From media reports, it was gathered that Sunday Jackson had overpowered the aggressor and obtained his weapon before killing him which might have made the aggressor harmless as at the time of his death thereby influencing the court’s decision to pass judgement against Sunday Jackson.
Going by the principles set in Kwagshir v The State, it is safe to say from the reports of the case the first two conditions were inarguably fulfilled.
So, the next question on our minds should be if there was a safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat?
In defence of the Supreme Court’s decision, it can be argued that if retreating from an attack is a viable option, the use of defensive force becomes unnecessary and unreasonable. Given that a significant portion of Nigerian law is derived from English common law, the principle of retreat has been incorporated into Nigeria's legal framework, though it appears to be limited to cases involving provoked assaults.
Section 287 of the Criminal Code states in part:
"When a person has unlawfully assaulted another or has provoked an assault, and the other person responds with such violence as to create a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm, leading the first person to reasonably believe that using force in self-defense is necessary for self-preservation, he is not criminally liable for using such force—provided it is reasonably necessary—even if it results in death or grievous harm.
However, this protection does not apply if the person using force was the initial aggressor, having intended to kill or inflict grievous harm. Similarly, it does not extend to cases where the individual sought to cause death or grievous harm before self-preservation became necessary. In both instances, the person must have, before the necessity arose, attempted to disengage from the conflict and retreated as far as practicable."
Historically, English common law required a strict "retreat to the wall" standard before justifying the use of extreme force. In contrast, the Nigerian Penal Code, which is in use in Adamawa State, does not impose a legal duty to retreat.
In trying to align ourselves with the position of Sunday Jackson and taking into consideration the nationwide reports of herdsmen killing farmers, is it fair to say he should have run away knowing fully well it is also aa norm for herdsmen to wander in groups? Did the court put into consideration the mental state of Sunday Jackson as at the time of facing an imminent threat to his life by an alleged group that has been famed for killing? Wasn’t his action a necessity to avert an unfortunate event for him?
It is also pertinent to note that going by reports the accused alleged that he was stabbed in the leg and was physically impaired, making escape impossible. Where this facts not proven, or did the court err in its interpretation of section 23 of the Adamawa state Penal code which recognizes the right to self-defence by ruling that Jackson should have fled instead of fighting back?
Like earlier stated there have being several reported cases of herdsmen killing farmers in Nigeria. In an alternate universe it most likely would have been the case of Sunday Jackson had he not defended himself the best way he could.
Jackson’s conviction has raised more questions than answers. It sets a complicated precedent for Nigerians everywhere. If an innocent person cannot defend himself against an attack without risking a death sentence, what message does that send?
Section 222 (2) of the Penal Code provides:
“…culpable homicide is not punishable with death if the offender in the exercise (in good faith) of the right of private defence exceeds the powers given to him and causes death…”
This section interprets that killing occasioned by the use of excessive force in self-defense is manslaughter only, and not murder. In this case Sunday Jackson was said to have disarmed the aggressor before killing him which raises the key legal question, if the threat was still imminent after disarmament. Courts generally hold that once an attacker is disarmed and no longer possess an immediate danger, the use of lethal force may no longer be justified. This is most likely to be a situation of using excessive force or retaliation.
It should also be brought to our notice that the state of the purported crime is Adamawa state which has reviewed and adopted the Penal code. This is also the argument of some supporters of Jackson that a charge of manslaughter should have been filed ab initio.
The way forward
It is true that this issue has raised a lot of questions and gained widespread condemnation from human rights groups and activists. The Christian Association of Nigeria in the 19 Northern states and Abuja has strongly condemned the Supreme Court’s Judgement describing it as a “grave travesty of Justice”. The argued that the judgement contradicts sections 23 and 24 of the Adamawa State Penal Code and appealed to the Governor of the state 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. William Devlin, a US-based human rights advocate, criticized the Nigerian justice system, asserting that it had failed Jackson. Many other activists have also lent their voices on this issue, it is on this note that the writer suggests that the Supreme court should do well to review their decision on this matter. The unanswered questions will still linger on until the exact position of the Supreme Court is fully understood, because in the end, when the law punishes survival, who will be left to defend the innocent?
Conclusion
The right to life is meaningless if individuals cannot defend themselves without fear of wrongful conviction. The Sunday Jackson case highlights raised critical questions in Nigeria’s judicial system. If justice is truly blind, courts must ensure that those who act in self-preservation are not sacrificed to flawed legal interpretations. However, when the court’s judgement is gotten further adjustments and insights will be made to fully grasp the rationale behind the court’s decision
Article by Ayawari Tom Ebibo (HCRC)
Photocredit: Unsplash