Constitutional lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mike Ozekhome, has slammed the Supreme Court over its recent ruling that affirmed the death sentence of Adamawa Christian farmer Sunday Jackson for defending himself against a killer herdsman.

In a ruling on March 7, 2025, the apex court upheld a lower court decision sentencing Mr Jackson to death by hanging for killing a Fulani herdsman, Ardo Bawuro, in an altercation on his farmland over 10 years ago, sparking widespread outrage over what the defence and critics said was a self-defence act.

Mr Ozekhome, who is currently representing the embattled leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, in his high-profile terrorism case against the Nigerian government, has now become the latest public figure to criticise the Supreme Court’s verdict condemning Mr Jackson to the death penalty.

In his analysis of the apex court’s verdict, Mr Ozekhome said the conclusion of the Supreme Court raised serious concerns about fairness and the fundamental right of every Nigerian to defend themselves.

He stated that justices were unrealistic to determine Mr Jackson should have fled after subduing his attacker.

“The facts surrounding the case raised significant questions about fairness, judicial reasoning and the fundamental right to self-defence,” Mr Ozekhome said.“The court reasoned that having seized the dagger, Jackson no longer faced an imminent threat and should have fled instead of retaliating with deadly force.”

He added, “This position has been widely criticised as unrealistic and disconnected from the realities of violent encounters.”

Mr Ozekhome also noted that Mr Jackson has maintained consistent claims of the incident, arguing that the defendant was right to instinctively react in the heat of the moment to defend himself against his attacker, which subsequently resulted in his death.

He insisted that the stabbing that resulted in the death of Mr Bawuro occurred during a physical struggle, and the justices’ notion that Mr Jackson had the opportunity to flee to safety while in a confrontation against an armed attacker was impossible.

“Jackson’s claim was consistent and straightforward; he acted instinctively to preserve his life in the face of sudden, life-threatening danger. The stabbing occurred during a physical struggle,” Mr Ozekhome argued.

“The notion that he had a clear and safe opportunity to flee while entangled in a fight with an armed opponent is, at best, speculative and, at worst, a dangerous oversimplification of a clear and perfect danger to his life. The apex court appeared to construct a simplistic mental narrative that did not align with the raw, chaotic nature of real-life violence.”

The senior lawyer added that the apex court erred in its handling of the case, stating that it violated the constitution by delivering judgment 167 days after the close of the argument, when it had a maximum of 90 days.