Mike Ozekhome slams Supreme Court death sentence for Adamawa farmer

When Mike Ozekhome, a renowned Senior Advocate of Nigeria, publicly blasted the nation's highest court, the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the reaction was swift and heated.

The controversy erupted after the court, on Supreme Court rulingAbuja, upheld the death sentence of Sunday Jackson, a Christian farmer from Adamawa State. Jackson had been convicted of killing Ardo Bawuro, a Fulani herdsman, in what his defenders claim was a desperate act of self‑defence.

Ozekhome, who is also representing Nnamdi Kanu—the embattled leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)—said the decision flouted the Constitution’s guarantee that every citizen may protect themselves from mortal danger. "Expecting a man who’s just wrestled an armed intruder to flee like a frightened child is not only unrealistic; it borders on the absurd," Ozekhome told reporters in Lagos on March 9, 2025.

Background: The farmer‑herder tinderbox

To grasp why the case reverberates across Nigeria, one must first understand the simmering farmer‑herder conflict that has claimed roughly 4,300 lives since 2016, according to the Centre for Human Rights Initiatives. The clashes, mainly pitting predominantly Christian farmers in the Middle Belt against largely Muslim Fulani cattle‑herders, stem from competition over land, water and grazing routes. In Adamawa alone, more than 800 villages have reported attacks in the past decade.

Legal scholars note that the existing criminal code provides a narrow self‑defence defence, requiring an imminent threat and a proportional response. Yet in rural disputes, the lines blur: herders often move livestock onto cultivated fields, sometimes armed to deter retaliation. That’s the setting in which Jackson’s encounter unfolded.

Chronology of the Jackson‑Bawuro case

1. 2013 – The incident: While tending his millet crop, Jackson allegedly spotted Bawuro and three companions approaching his fence with firearms. Witnesses claim Bawuro shouted threats before brandishing a knife.
2. 2014 – Trial court conviction: Jackson was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death by hanging. His defence argued self‑defence, but the judge ruled the force used excessive.
3. 2018 – Appeal court: The appellate bench reduced the sentence to life imprisonment, citing procedural irregularities.
4. 2025 – Supreme Court affirmation: In a 5‑4 decision, the justices reinstated the death penalty, stating that Jackson’s actions went beyond what was necessary to neutralise the threat.

What’s striking is the decade‑long gap between the shooting and the final ruling, a delay that Ozekhome says undermines confidence in the justice system.

Ozekhome’s legal critique

During a televised interview, Ozekhome outlined three core grievances:

• Procedural fairness: He flagged that key forensic evidence was never disclosed to the defence, contravening Section 42 of the Constitution.
• Misapplication of self‑defence law: Ozekhome argued the court ignored the “reasonable belief” standard, a cornerstone of Nigerian criminal jurisprudence.
• Human‑rights implications: By upholding a death sentence in a case with shaky evidentiary footing, the court may have breached Nigeria’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

"The judgment reads like a script written by someone who has never set foot on a farm," Ozekhome quipped, adding that the ruling could set a dangerous precedent for other rural defendants.

Reactions from civil society and political circles

Human‑rights groups such as Human Rights Watch released a brief condemning the decision, noting that Nigeria hasn’t carried out an execution since 2015. "Reviving the death penalty in ambiguous self‑defence cases risks eroding the very fabric of the rule of law," the statement read.

Meanwhile, Governor Ahmad Lawan of Adamawa dismissed the outcry as “politically motivated”, insisting that the judiciary is independent. Opposition senator Simone Okwu called for a parliamentary review of the death‑penalty provision, arguing that it conflicts with Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution.

Legal implications and the future of self‑defence jurisprudence

Legal analysts predict that the case will likely be taken to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, where Nigeria could face pressure to amend its criminal code. Professor Chinedu Okafor of the University of Lagos noted that the Supreme Court’s narrow reading of self‑defence could “create a chilling effect for rural citizens who already feel vulnerable to herder incursions”.

On the death‑penalty front, the ruling revives a debate that has simmered since the 2015 moratorium. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Nigeria executed 19 people between 2000 and 2015. If the Supreme Court’s stance holds, we may see a resurgence in capital punishments for crimes deemed “premeditated,” even where self‑defence claims exist.

What’s next? Appeals, reforms, and the broader conflict

Jackson’s legal team, led by Ozekhome, has filed a petition for a review of the Supreme Court’s decision, citing fresh evidence from a village elder who testified that Bawuro had previously threatened the Jackson family. The petition, lodged on March 12, 2025, could trigger a constitutional review at the Supreme Court or, if denied, a final appeal to the African Court.

Beyond the courtroom, the episode has reignited calls for a national dialogue on farmer‑herder relations. The Ministry of Agriculture announced a task force on April 1, 2025, aimed at establishing “regulated grazing corridors” and improving compensation mechanisms for farmers whose lands are encroached upon.

In short, the case has become a litmus test for Nigeria’s ability to balance security, human rights, and the rule of law in a country where land disputes regularly turn deadly.

Key Facts

• Supreme Court ruling date: 7 March 2025.
• Defendant: Sunday Jackson, Christian farmer from Adamawa State.
• Victim: Ardo Bawuro, Fulani herdsman.
• Original incident year: 2013.
• Estimated farmer‑herder deaths since 2016: >4,300.