Commentary on Sunday Jackson v. The State
Supreme Court of Nigeria, Judgment of March 7, 2025
The Supreme Court’s decision in Sunday Jackson v. The State raises troubling questions about consistency in criminal jurisprudence. After reviewing the dissenting judgment of Honourable Justice Helen Ogunwunmiju, it is evident that the majority ruling was delivered per incuriam, while the dissent reflects the proper application of law and justice.
The Facts
Sunday Jackson was stabbed twice by the deceased while attempting to flee.
He eventually overpowered his assailant, resulting in the death of the attacker.
This evidence was unassailable and directly engaged the doctrine of self-defence.
The Majority Decision
The Court held that self-defence would not avail the appellant. With respect, this conclusion departs from earlier Nigerian jurisprudence and undermines the principle that the law does not demand martyrdom from its citizens. Where a person is confronted with imminent unlawful violence, the law recognizes the instinctive and reasonable act of self-preservation.
Nigerian Precedents
The Nigerian Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the availability of self-defence:
Case Citation Principle Affirmed
Udo Akpan v. State [1986] NGSC Self-defence is available where the accused faces imminent danger to life.
Ojo Adeyeye v. State (2013) SC.305/2010 The Court reaffirmed that self-defence protects those who act reasonably to preserve life.
These precedents demonstrate that the doctrine of self-defence is deeply rooted in Nigerian criminal law.
The majority in Sunday Jackson departed from this settled position, thereby creating inconsistency.
Comparative Common Law Authorities
Nigerian courts frequently draw upon English common law principles. Two leading authorities are instructive:
R v. Palmer [1971] AC 814 (Privy Council): Lord Morris famously stated that “if there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it should be recognized that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action.”
R v. Gladstone Williams [1984] 78 Cr App R 276 (Court of Appeal): The Court held that a person may rely on self-defence if they honestly and reasonably believe they are under attack, even if mistaken.
These authorities underscore that the law must be flexible enough to protect individuals acting under the stress of violent confrontation. Nigerian jurisprudence has historically aligned with these principles, making the majority’s departure in Sunday Jackson all the more troubling.
The Dissent
Justice Ogunwunmiju’s dissent is a model of judicial courage. She correctly applied the principle that the law protects those who act to preserve their lives in the face of imminent danger. Her reasoning aligns with both Nigerian precedent and common law authorities, ensuring that justice is not sacrificed to rigid formalism.
Implications for Future Cases
The implications of this ruling are significant:
Doctrinal Uncertainty: By departing from precedent, the majority risks creating confusion in the application of self-defence, leaving trial courts uncertain about the proper standard.
Erosion of Protection: Citizens may feel less secure in relying on self-defence, fearing that survival itself could be criminalized.
Judicial Integrity: The dissent highlights the importance of fidelity to precedent. If future courts adopt the majority’s reasoning, the doctrine of self-defence may be narrowed in ways inconsistent with both Nigerian and common law traditions.
Historical Vindication of Dissent: As seen in comparative jurisprudence, dissents often shape future law. Justice Ogunwunmiju’s opinion may serve as a foundation for restoring doctrinal clarity in subsequent cases.
Conclusion
While the majority decision carries the force of law, it is the dissent that carries the force of justice. By disregarding clear evidence of self-defence, the Court undermined its own precedents and departed from persuasive common law authorities such as Palmer and Williams.
Justice Ogunwunmiju’s dissent will stand in history as the opinion that upheld the integrity of the law and the sanctity of human life, and it may well guide the restoration of doctrinal coherence in the future.