Nigeria’s Self-Defense Laws Face Scrutiny in Sunday Jackson Case

A renewed national debate has erupted over Nigeria’s self-defense laws following the Supreme Court’s March 7, 2025 judgment in the case of Sunday Jackson v. State. The ruling, which upheld Jackson’s 2021 conviction and death sentence for the killing of Fulani herdsman Buba Bawuro during a confrontation in Codonti Forest, has sparked legal, political, and international reactions.

Background of the Case

In a viral video circulating the social media, according to court records, farmer Sunday Jackson and herder Buba Bawuro engaged in a violent altercation during which Jackson claimed he acted only to save his life. Jackson asserted that he was repeatedly attacked, wrestled the weapon away, and acted out of fear for imminent harm.

However, the Supreme Court’s majority decision disagreed with his plea of self-defense, ruling that the force used was not proportional in the circumstances. While the court noted inconsistencies in Jackson’s narrative, a dissenting justice pointed out weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence and argued that the principle of reasonable doubt should have applied.

Legal Experts Question Court’s Interpretation

The ruling has drawn intense discussion across Nigeria’s legal community. A widely circulated legal commentary explained how the doctrine of self-defense is structured around proportionality and imminence. Under Nigerian law, a person under attack is permitted to use reasonable force to protect themselves from serious harm—but the force must stop once the danger is no longer immediate.

The lawyer’s breakdown emphasized that:

Self-defense is allowed only when the threat is active and imminent.

The law does not permit retaliation after the threat has ended.

Each case must be judged on its specific facts—strength of the parties, availability of escape, perceived danger, and whether the assailant continued advancing.

He stressed that assumptions such as “the attacker had dropped the weapon” do not automatically end the threat, as the victim cannot know whether another weapon is concealed or whether physical force may still cause serious harm.

Public Reactions and Calls for Review

The analysis triggered widespread public debate, with many Nigerians arguing that the ruling failed to consider the realities of farmer-herder conflicts, where sudden confrontations often turn deadly. Social media discussions amplified demands for a presidential pardon, judicial review, and reforms to clarify the boundaries of lawful self-defense.

Communities affected by rural insecurity say the case reflects broader fears that citizens are being denied legal protection when facing life-threatening situations.

See the Video:

International Attention

The controversy also reached foreign observers. U.S. Congressman Riley Moore criticized the ruling during a hearing on religious freedom, calling the judgment “unjust” and urging Nigerian authorities to reevaluate the conviction in light of ongoing violence in agrarian regions.

His comments added international pressure and further fueled debates about fairness, due process, and the interpretation of self-defense laws in Nigeria.

The Broader Legal Conversation

Legal practitioners caution that public reactions must be grounded in accurate understanding. They argue that court judgments cannot be interpreted as blanket rules because Nigerian law requires judges to evaluate the precise circumstances of each case.

They also highlight that judicial precedents work through distinguishing—meaning one case does not automatically decide another unless the facts are essentially identical.

“The law on self-defense is not a straitjacket,” the lawyer’s opinion concluded. “It only works when applied logically to the facts. Anything outside logic becomes doubtful in legality. We must be guided by the actual principles, not sweeping generalizations.”

What Comes Next

As advocacy groups mobilize and political figures weigh in, the Sunday Jackson case has become a catalyst for renewed examination of Nigeria’s criminal-defense framework. Whether it leads to legislative amendments, judicial reforms, or a review of Jackson’s conviction remains to be seen.

What is clear, however, is that the case has opened a national conversation about the right to self-preservation, the realities of rural insecurity, and the need for a justice system that maintains both fairness and clarity.