CAN you be guilty of murder for defending yourself after being stabbed twice? In Sunday Jackson v. The State, the Supreme Court upheld a death sentence, rejecting a self-defence claim many legal experts say should have stood.

However, one of the judges, Helen Ogunwumiju’s dissent has sparked fresh debate over what counts as reasonable force in life-or-death moments. The core of the controversy lies in the Supreme Court’s affirmation of lower court decisions that convicted Jackson of culpable homicide, a verdict many legal minds find inconsistent with the principles of self-preservation.

Background 

The case originated from an incident in January 2015 in Kodomti village, Adamawa State. Jackson was charged under Section 221(a) of the Penal Code Laws of Adamawa State 1997 for the death of a herdsman.

According to court documents, Jackson testified that the deceased approached him on his farm, questioned him about the whereabouts of some passerby, and then allowed his cattle to graze on Jackson’s land. When confronted, the man allegedly drew a knife and attacked Jackson, stabbing him in the back of the head and then the leg as Jackson tried to flee.

“On the 27th January 2015, I went to the farm, I was working, one Fulani (Buba Barowa) man rushing with his cattle, then he asked me, that there are some people that came through here, where are they? I answer that I don’t know, then he put his cattle into my farm, then I asked him why did he put his cattle in my farm, he did not say anything, then I pursued the cattle out of my farm,” Jackson was quoted. 

Jackson recounted that, fearing for his life during a subsequent attack, he managed to disarm the Barowa and, in the struggle, stabbed him. During cross-examination, Jackson stated he did not believe his actions would result in the man’s death.

However, the prosecution presented Jackson’s confessional statement  to the police where he admitted to the stabbing. The trial court, relying on this statement and rejecting the self-defence plea, found Jackson guilty and sentenced him to death.

Dissatisfied, Jackson proceeded to the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn the trial court’s decision. However, the appellate court upheld the initial conviction and sentence, leading to the final appeal at the Supreme Court.

Again, Jackson approached the Supreme Court, which would ultimately render the judgment that is now the subject of intense legal scrutiny.

In a majority judgment delivered by a justice, Mohammed Baba Idris, the Supreme Court sided with the lower courts. The crux of their reasoning was that once Jackson had dispossessed the deceased of the knife, any subsequent fatal stabbings were deemed to exceed the bounds of justifiable self-defence. The court emphasised the disproportionate nature of stabbing the deceased multiple times in the throat after the initial threat had been neutralised.

Key component of the supreme court ruling

Idris stated that “once the appellant dispossessed the deceased of the knife, the subsequent stabbing of the deceased thrice on the throat was disproportionate to the initial threat.”

The court also highlighted the absence of a medical report corroborating Jackson’s injuries from the initial attack and noted the availability of an escape route for him after disarming the deceased.

“The Appellant has no medical report to show or prove that the stab wound was sustained from the actions of the deceased and unfortunately, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident between the appellant and the deceased. Only the appellant knows what happened between him and the deceased and he made an unequivocal statement in exhibits B1 and B2 about what transpired and the same was admitted in evidence without any objection. It is trite that a court can convict on the extra judicial confession of an accused person which is voluntary and true but inconsistent with his evidence in court…

Furthermore, the majority judgment dismissed the self-defence argument, stating, “Contrary to the argument of the appellant, the defence of self-defence is not available to the appellant on a closer consideration of the evidence, and in the light of the circumstances of this particular case.” 

Ogunwumiju’s dissenting opinion

In contrast, Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, one of the lead judges on the case at the Supreme Court, offered a different perspective on the issue of self-defence. 

She argued that the lower courts had correctly identified the deceased as the initial aggressor who inflicted injuries on Jackson. Ogunwumiju questioned the majority’s assessment of proportionality in the context of a life-threatening situation.

She argued that a person who has already been stabbed twice and is still under attack cannot be expected to immediately cease fighting for their life the moment they gain a temporary advantage.

According to her, the deceased was the initial aggressor, and Jackson was acting in reasonable fear for his life.  

She also addressed the issue of the confessional statement, arguing that it consistently maintained Jackson’s self-defence claim.  

Ogunwumiju further highlighted the necessity and proportionality of self-defence, suggesting that Jackson’s actions were justifiable in the face of imminent danger.  

Ogunwumiju criticised the lower courts for not adequately evaluating the evidence ofJackson’s injuries. She stated, “In this case, since the evidence of the wounds on the appellant which he claimed were inflicted by the deceased was not evaluated by the trial Judge, and it deals with evidence on record, this Court is on the same footing as the trial Judge and I choose to believe the evidence of the Appellant in that regard as the trial Court after making a record of seeing the wounds, did not evaluate the evidence or make a finding on it.”

She challenged the notion that Jackson’s failure to immediately flee after disarming his attacker indicated premeditation. Citing legal precedent, she noted that while fleeing is a primary reaction in self-preservation, the possibility of disengagement depends on the specific circumstances.

“I cannot agree that a reasonable man who had been stabbed twice already and who was still being attacked with a herdsman’s stick would hesitate to fight for his life. It would have been a different thing altogether if there had been an intervening period in the fight. The appellant took advantage of the fact that the person who had stabbed him on the back of his head, an equally dangerous place to be stabbed, had become temporarily weak and took the opportunity to save his own life,” she noted.

“I acquit and discharge the Appellant. Since I appear to be in the minority, I recommend this Appellant as a proper candidate for the Governor of Adamawa State to exercise his prerogative of mercy,” the judge ended her judgement. 

The dissenting opinion of  Ogunwumiju has resonated with many legal experts who believe it offers a more pragmatic and humane understanding of self-defence.  There have been calls and concerted efforts to get clemency for Jackson.  This will mean the governor granting him pardon.