The case of Sunday Jackson presents a classic instance where the law must choose between formalism and justice. The grant of amnesty in his favour, while politically framed as mercy, is in substance a tacit acknowledgment that the criminal process which led to his conviction cannot be sustained under constitutional and international legal scrutiny.
In such circumstances, amnesty cannot lawfully or morally coexist with the continued validity of the conviction. It must operate as an acquittal.
Once the defence of self-defence was raised, the law imposed a clear and non-negotiable obligation on the prosecution to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.
That burden was never discharged. The failure to properly investigate the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence, coupled with the absence of a rigorous judicial evaluation of imminence, proportionality, and necessity, fatally undermines the safety of the conviction. A criminal judgment that glosses over a complete or total defence is not merely erroneous; it is unconstitutional.
The right to fair hearing, guaranteed under the Nigerian Constitution and reinforced by settled appellate judicial authorities, was compromised the moment the burden of proof shifted, whether expressly or by implication, to the accused.
Sunday Jackson was compelled to justify his survival rather than the State being compelled to prove criminal intent. Such inversion strikes at the very heart of criminal jurisprudence and renders the entire proceeding a nullity.
Under international human rights law, particularly the ICCPR and the African Charter, a State bears a positive obligation to ensure that no person is arbitrarily deprived of liberty following an unfair trial. Where a conviction is followed not by appellate vindication but by executive amnesty, the unavoidable inference is that the State itself no longer has confidence in the legality of the outcome. Lord Devlin (Baron Devlin of West Wick), in considering the Wolfenden Committee Report had rightly pointed out that the law shall continue to support minimum quantum of morality and objectivity. Amnesty in this context is therefore not a discretionary act of compassion but an implicit concession of procedural failure – a failure decked in the drab robes of injustice that took formalism beyond Prof. H. L. A Hart’s theoretical and normative descriptions of how judges should decide cases iñ realistic positivist terms with some degree of certainty.
It is settled in human rights practice that wrongful convictions cannot be cured by clemency. Clemency may mitigate punishment, but it does not rectify injustice. To exculpate or release a person while preserving the legal fiction of guilt is to perpetuate the very violation that necessitated intervention in the first place. International standards require effective remedies, including full exoneration, restitution of rights, and restoration of dignity.
Maintaining the conviction alongside amnesty exposes the State to continued liability for arbitrary detention and denial of fair trial guarantees. It also defeats the remedial purpose of executive intervention by insulating judicial and prosecutorial failures from accountability. The law does not permit the State to approbate and reprobate—to concede injustice – through release while insisting on guilt through silence.
In these circumstances, the only legally coherent outcome is for the amnesty granted to Sunday Jackson to be treated as operating ex debito justitiae as an acquittal. His criminal record must be vacated, all consequential disabilities extinguished, and his legal status restored as a person wrongfully convicted and unlawfully detained.Anything short of this leaves the justice system in self contradiction.
Mercy may open the prison gate, but only acquittal closes the case. Where the process has failed, justice demands not half-measures but full correction. That is the minimum required by the Constitution, by international law, and by the conscience of any system that still claims fidelity to the rule of law.
In the interest of justice, Sunday Jackson’s amnesty should, as a necessity, be transmuted to an acquittal recognising his innocence and restoring his dignity. This rectification would not only vindicate Jackson’s rights and give him the justice he deserves. but also reinforce trust in our justice system.
It is also time to rewrite the narrative of our unfortunate situation by permanently shutting the doors against the persecutions (disguised as prosecution), of several members of indigenous communities attacked by terrorists These are persons suffering from one form of pain or the other for their patriotic boldness in defending their ancestral land against the brutal attacks by Fulani herdsmen. The case of the Agatu youth leader Silas Oloche Iduh and others like him who are kept in long periods of solitary confinement by the Nigerian authorities for the patriotic defence of their land calls for urgent review here as per its propriety. There should also be some measure at dismantling the (apparently) official shield of protection that enables the audacity of banditry attacks in the country.
Dr. Ogwuche is the time president of the Campaign for Social Justice and Constitutional Democracy in Africa and based in Port Harcourt. He can be reached on festusogwuche@gmail.com
