Skip to main content
Social Media Links
Search
Home
How Supreme Court Affirmed Death Sentence For Farmer Jackson In Herdsman’s Murder
How Supreme Court Affirmed Death Sentence For Farmer Jackson In Herdsman’s Murder
March 23, 2025
News
The court asserted that the defences presented “only serve to reinforce the prosecution’s case, proving beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant committed the crime for which he was charged.”
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has reaffirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, upholding the conviction of a farmer, Sunday Jackson, for the murder of a herdsman, Alhaji Buba Bawuro, in Kodomti Village, Numan Local Government Area, Adamawa State.
In a unanimous judgment, SC/CR/1026/2022, delivered by Hon. Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, the court ruled against Jackson’s defence of provocation.
The court asserted that the defences presented “only serve to reinforce the prosecution’s case, proving beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant committed the crime for which he was charged.”
The judgment, dated March 21 and delivered on March 7, emphasised that “an accused person cannot legally be entitled to the defence of provocation and self-defence at the same time and in relation to the same offence.”
A certified true copy of the judgment was obtained by SaharaReporters.
Document
imgtopdf_2303252017040_250323_201807.pdf
The court cited several authorities to support its decision.
The appeal challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Yola Division, delivered on June 27, 2022. The lower court had dismissed Jackson’s appeal, upholding his conviction and sentence as handed down by the trial High Court on February 10, 2021.
In its ruling, the court held that the defence of provocation also failed, noting that the defences of self-defence and provocation are mutually exclusive and cannot be applied simultaneously.
The court further stated that the prosecution presented overwhelming evidence to support the charge, considering all the evidence on record, witness testimonies, and the accused’s admissions.
The court said, “…In view of my findings above, I hold that the defence of provocation also fails. These defences only appear to strengthen the case presented by the prosecution that the Appellant, in fact, and by law, committed the offence for which he was charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Also, by way of addition and still bearing my findings in mind, it is important to state that even though the Appellant raised the defence of self-defence at the trial court which was also considered in the court below and that this Court raised the defence of provocation, a defence which it thinks its element presented itself from the evidence on record but which it has now come to the conclusion does not avail the Appellant, both defences of self-defence and provocation are mutually exclusive and cannot avail the Appellant at the same time.
“In the light of the foregoing, it is the decision of this Court that despite its effort to do substantial justice in considering the defence of provocation, the defence of self-defence and provocation cannot avail the Appellant at the same time.
“In conclusion on this issue, I, therefore, hold that the prosecution led overwhelming evidence in proof of the charge considering all the evidence on record, witness(es) testimonies, admission by the accused person in Exhibits B1 and B2, and in the absence of the Appellant’s full proof of all the ingredients of the defence raised from the evidence on record.
“I, therefore, hold that the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were not in grave error when they refused the Appellant’s defence of self-defence and upheld the conviction and sentence of the trial court.
“In the light of all I have said herein above, I hold that Exhibits B1 and B2 qualify as the confessional statement of the Appellant and not just a mere statement and it is enough to prove the guilt of the Appellant and for the trial court to safely convict on same.
“I do not think either the trial court or the court below was wrong in considering the statement of the Appellant, which is purely confessional, in convicting and sentencing the Appellant as it is.
“It is thus safe to conclude that the Respondent proved the charge against the Appellant at the trial court to warrant the judgment of the trial court which was upheld by the court below.
“Thus, the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were not in error when they held that the statement of the Appellant was confessional and that the trial court could convict the Appellant on same.
“It is on this note that this issue is thus resolved against the Appellant.
“It is settled that the onus lies on the Appellant to give good reasons why this Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of the two lower courts.
“However, it is clear from the facts and circumstances of this case that the situation in which the Appellant found himself, does not demand that this Court must intervene by doing something about it.
“In other words, it is clear from the peculiar facts of this case that there are no good reasons for this Court to disturb or interfere with the concurrent findings of the two lower courts.
“There is nothing to indicate the defence of self-defence or even provocation on the part of the Appellant to not ground a conviction for the offence of culpable homicide punishable with death, and there is no evidence to establish that the Appellant did not commit the offence.”
“In the circumstances, I hold that this appeal lacks merit and same is therefore hereby dismissed. The judgment of the court below delivered on the 27th day of June, 2022 affirming the conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the trial court in its judgment delivered on the 10th day of February, 2021 is hereby affirmed,” the judgement read.
Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, while upholding the judgment, ruled that if a person successfully disarms an assailant but fails to escape or retreat and instead uses the seized dagger to stab the now unarmed assailant, such actions constitute a reprisal or revenge attack rather than self-defence or provocation.
Other members of the panel were Justices Helen M. Ogunwumiju, Haruna Simon Tsammani, and Habeeb Adewale O. Abiru.
