Numan, the town that lends its name to one of the 21 Local Government Areas in Adamawa State in north-east Nigeria, is home to the Bwatiye (Bachama), a transnational identity group stretching into parts of Cameroon. Located in the basin of Benue River and one of its tributaries, River Taraba, Numan’s fecund lands play host to vast energies in sedentary agriculture. Fulbe pastoralists have for long also found it welcoming for grazing their herds.
These factors have made Numan a major frontier in the murderous livelihood conflict that has pitted sedentary farmers against armed pastoralists in the Middle Belt of Nigeria. Described as a crisis “over scarce land and water resources,” this conflict is estimated to have “claimed the lives of around 10,000 Nigerians” in the period since about 2013. It is widely recognised as the second most deadly conflict in Nigeria after the Boko Haram crisis.
For nearly three years until 2018, Numan was the site of a murderous war between sedentary farmers and armed pastoralists. No one knows the number of those who have lost their lives in this conflict. James Courtright, who researched the situation, wrote in 2023 that “by the time the crisis ended in January 2018, around 150 people were dead, a dozen villages burned to the ground and hundreds of Fulbe who had called Numan home had fled.” Tens of thousands were reportedly displaced. This crisis even became the subject of litigation before the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court of Justice).
On 5 December 2017, then Vice President Yemi Osinbajo visited Adamawa State to see things for himself. Subsequently, the Federal Government arranged to distribute emergency relief materials to affected communities, including Dong, Lawaru, and Kukumso in Demsa LGA; as well as “Shafaron, Kodomti, Tullum, Mzoruwe and Mararraban Bare in Numan Local Government Area.” Amidst these developments, the Federal Government launched what ultimately proved to be an inconclusive “series of national consultations with all relevant groups designed to find a lasting solution to the farmers-herders conflict in parts of the country.”
The events in Kodomti village during this crisis were to become the subject of prosecutorial interest, which worked its way up to the Supreme Court, coming to a decision on 7 March. On 27 January 2015, an incident occurred in a farm in Kodomti belonging to Sunday Jackson. By the time the dust had settled, Ardo Bawuro lay dead, a victim of three stab wounds in the neck in the hands of Jackson.
The Adamawa State Director of Public Prosecutions arraigned Jackson on one count of culpable homicide punishable with death (murder) for the killing of Bawuro. On 10 February 2021, the High Court of Adamawa State convicted and sentenced Sunday Jackson to death. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 20 July 2022. From there he appealed to the Supreme Court.
The evidence relied on by the courts was straightforward. There was a coroner’s report but the judgment does not mention a pathologist’s report. According to Jackson’s statement to the police:
“On Tuesday, 27/01/15 at about 11:10 hrs, I left my village and was cutting thatching grasses (sic) in a bush located in Kodomti village in Numan LGA when the deceased, Buba Bawuro as identified attacked me after loosing (sic) sight of some persons alleged to be pursuing (sic) for killing his cattle. He attacked me in frustration and wanted to stab me with a dagger then we engaged in a wrestling encounter. I succeeded in seizing the dagger from him which I used to stab him thrice on his throat. When the deceased collapsed and was rolling down in a pool of his blood, I took heels and escaped.”
In its judgment on 7 March delivered by Baba Idris, the Supreme Court determined that this statement was a confession and simultaneously also raised issues of self-defence, which had to be considered.
In Nigeria, self-defence is a constitutionally guaranteed right. In criminal law, it is also total exoneration to a charge of murder.
According to the court, four conditions must be present for self-defence to succeed. First, the accused must be free from fault in bringing about the encounter leading to death. Second, there must be present an impending peril to life or of grievous bodily harm. Third, there must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape. Fourth, there must be a necessity for taking of life.
The Supreme Court found that the first and second conditions were fulfilled in the case of Sunday Jackson. As to the last two conditions, the court said that “there was a reasonable mode of escape by retreat and there was no necessity to take the life of the deceased.” It did so, notwithstanding that there was nothing in evidence about how safe it was to retreat. Consequently, the court held that “the defence of self-defence is not available on a closer consideration of the evidence, and in the light of the circumstances of this particular case.” The court also dismissed any possibility of a defence of provocation, which would have reduced the crime to manslaughter.
In his concurring judgment, Haruna Tsammani said: “on the facts as narrated…., I am of the view that [Jackson] inflicted more harm than was necessary for the purpose of defending himself. Having overpowered the deceased and collected the dagger from him, a stab would not be considered excessive. It is also my view that [Jackson] acted in a vengeful manner by stabbing the deceased trice (sic) in the neck; a person he had overpowered.”
This statement by Tsammani is at the heart of the three flaws with this judgment. One is a matter of law and evidence: The Supreme Court believed it was alright for Sunday Jackson to have stabbed Ardo Bawuro once, but not thrice. But there was no evidence before the court as to which of the three stab wounds killed Ardo Bawuro.
It is possible that it was the first stab wound; or the second; or the third. That determination is a matter of evidence and, in criminal law, establishing what killed the Ardo Bawuro was the responsibility of the prosecution. If he was killed by the first stab, then the claim by the court that three stab wounds were too many is demonstrably gratuitous, and self-defence would have availed. In the absence of that kind of evidence, the court had no basis for excluding self-defence.
Second, the court imposed an unreasonable standard of assessment, requiring a person whom it found to be in real peril of loss of his life from an assailant with murder or grievous bodily harm on his mind to make assessments that are beyond the capability of any human in the throes of a fight-or-flight struggle.
Third, in suggesting that Jackson had a reasonable means of escape, the Supreme Court showed almost blissful lack of awareness of the nature of the conflict on the floodplains of the Benue River (and its tributaries). This case arose in a conflict zone between livelihood and identity groups. The standard of evidentiary assessment deployed by the Supreme Court required Jackson to possess almost divine knowledge of the surrounding circumstances. Asking him to run in the middle of this required him to be certain that there was no other danger around him. There was no way that he or anyone could in the middle of an active conflict zone have attained that degree of knowledge or awareness.
The miracle in this case is how the court reached a unanimous judgment.
The Supreme Court, we are reminded, is the last bus-stop on legal disputes. Yet, in nearly every case presented for judicial resolution, we find ourselves not merely before the court of law but also before courts of public opinion, of precedent, and of posterity. The judgment in Jackson’s case is bad law, bad precedent, and bad policy. It is perverse on the scale of a miscarriage of justice. Jackson is eminently deserving of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy by the Governor of Adamawa State.
** Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, a professor of law, teaches at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and can be reached through This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
