Samuel Jackson And A Hanging Death Sentence 

The Supreme Court, on March 7, 2025, upheld the death sentence against Samuel Jackson, a farmer in his 30s, for killing a Fulani herdsman—an act he claims was in self-defense. The ruling has sparked outrage among Nigerians and human rights advocates, who criticize the judgment as unjust, arguing that innocent citizens face severe penalties for defending themselves against violent attacks while their attackers often escape accountability.

What’s The Case?

In 2015, Samuel Jackson was attacked on his farm in Codonti Forest, Adamawa State, by Buba Bawuro, a Fulani herdsman who had trespassed with his cattle. During the altercation, Bawuro pulled a knife and stabbed Jackson multiple times. In the struggle, Jackson managed to seize the weapon and fatally stabbed Bawuro in the neck before fleeing the scene. Despite consistently maintaining that he acted in self-defense, Jackson was arrested and charged with murder.

After spending seven years in pre-trial detention, a Yola court sentenced him to death by hanging in 2021—a decision that the Supreme Court has now upheld. However, Jackson’s trial was marred by many procedural errors, including violating the 1999 Constitution, which mandates that judgments be delivered within 90 days of final arguments. Court records show that Jackson testified on February 27, 2020, and the case was adjourned for final written addresses on August 27, 2020. However, judgment was not delivered until February 10, 2021—a delay of 167 days, far exceeding the constitutional limit.

Under Nigeria’s Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), such delays can render a judgment voidable, particularly when they result in a miscarriage of justice. Further compounding the injustice, the trial judge allegedly substituted personal opinions for facts, creating a version of events unsupported by evidence. Justice Fatima Ahmed Tafida ruled that Jackson should have fled the scene after disarming his attacker instead of using the weapon against him. The judge ruled that Jackson “had the option to flee” rather than defend himself—despite clear evidence that he had already been stabbed in the leg and was physically unable to escape. This contradicts established legal principles of self-defense, a right universally recognized. At worst, Jackson should have faced a manslaughter charge rather than murder.

His case also highlights deep flaws in Nigeria’s justice system, with multiple institutions—including the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Attorney General’s office, the trial judge (Justice Fatima Ahmed Tafida), and the Legal Aid Council—failing in their duties.

Furthermore, this judgment exposes the continued pampering of Fulani herdsmen, which reached unprecedented levels during the administration of Muhammadu Buhari, himself a Fulani man. Many herdsmen saw his presidency as a form of protection, emboldening them to commit acts of violence, including the mass killing of citizens and destruction of properties. Despite widespread outcry, Fulani herdsmen were rarely held accountable and, in some instances, were even labeled as a terrorist organization due to their unchecked brutality. The disparity in how justice is administered, as seen in Jackson’s case, only further highlights the deep-seated bias within the system.

What Are The Reactions?

The Supreme Court’s ruling has ignited outrage across Nigeria, with civil society organizations and human rights activists calling for his pardon. Many argue that Jackson’s case sets a dangerous precedent, effectively criminalizing self-defense—especially in rural areas where violent attacks by armed assailants, including Fulani herdsmen, have become alarmingly common. The judgment has intensified fears that law-abiding citizens, instead of being protected, are being punished for defending their lives and property.

Human rights lawyer Emmanuel Ogebe, a key member of Jackson’s defense team, condemned the ruling, warning that it highlights a broader pattern of injustice in Nigeria, where victims of aggression are increasingly prosecuted while their attackers often evade justice. He emphasized that in a country plagued by unchecked violence, particularly in regions terrorized by herdsmen militias, criminalizing self-defense could further embolden perpetrators and leave innocent citizens vulnerable.

Dr. William Terence Devlin, an American human rights advocate and supporter of Jackson, echoed similar concerns. He described the ruling as a miscarriage of justice, arguing that Jackson was merely exercising his fundamental right to self-preservation against an aggressor who had already inflicted serious bodily harm. Devlin further noted that cases like Jackson’s reinforce perceptions that Nigeria’s legal system is skewed in favor of influential groups rather than upholding the rights of ordinary citizens.

With Jackson now facing execution, legal advocates are intensifying their calls for an urgent review of his case. They warn that allowing this judgment to stand could further erode public trust in Nigeria’s already embattled judiciary, reinforcing fears that the system is slow, inefficient, and dangerously biased. International human rights organizations, including Open Doors, closely monitor the situation, increasing pressure on authorities to ensure fairness and due process.

As the outcry increases, attention is turning to Governor Ahmadu Umaru Fintiri of Adamawa State, who holds the constitutional power to grant clemency. Activists, religious leaders, and concerned citizens have launched petitions and campaigns urging the governor to intervene and prevent what they describe as a grave miscarriage of justice, and could set a dangerous precedent where citizens are prosecuted over self-defence. For now, Jackson remains on death row—his fate hanging in the balance, a stark symbol of a legal system many believe has failed him.