The Supreme Court Decision in Jackson V. State; Conundrums of Criminal Jurisprudence on Self-defence and Dangers of Disproportionate Punishment

Abstract

The jurisprudence of criminal law on the right to self-defence is a complex and nuanced Defence in law. This paper explores the tension between justice and self-preservation through the lens of right to self-defence in Nigerian criminal law. Using a key Supreme Court decision, it questions how far individuals can go to protect themselves without crossing into criminal liability. However, to offer a rational criticism and situate the decision of courts in the context of policy, function and purpose of criminal jurisprudence, a deep appreciation of the law is necessary. The outrage and criticism generated by the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Jackson v. State is the motivation for this review. Adopting the doctrinal research method, this paper relied on primary and secondary sources of law on self-defence in Nigeria; This research revealed, societal interest in holding persons who use violence accountable. Self-defence is a highly qualified Defence in law. Self-defence is not an open cheque to unrestrained violence. It must meet strict conditions like imminence of attack, proportional response and reasonable fear of harm or death. However, the paper argued that courts sometimes apply these standards too rigidly, leading to harsh outcomes, including severe punishments where circumstances suggest otherwise. By comparing legal principles and real-life application, the article exposes gaps in interpretation and calls for a more balanced, humane approach. Ultimately, it advocated state pardon to mitigate the harsh realities of disproportionate punishment evident in the case of Jackson Vs. State.

Keywords

References