Justice Delayed, Justice Denied: The 11-Year Ordeal of the Gbagyi Three in Kaduna
By Steven Kefas
(Kaduna), On a November morning in 2025, Gloria Mabeiam Ballason received a WhatsApp message at 8:16 a.m. from the court registrar. Judgment would be delivered at 9:00 a.m.—in less than an hour. The lead counsel for the defendants was out of town and so she delegated a lawyer to attend the session. The court doors closed to others including journalists seeking entry.
Inside Court 15 of the Kaduna State High Court, three men who had already spent 11 years behind bars learned they would remain imprisoned for 10 more years.Their crime? Conspiracy and “Intention to commit culpable homicide”, a charge that has left legal experts questioning how Nigerian courts can determine the intentions of a person’s heart. “Not even the devil knows the intention of the heart of man,” Ballason said, her frustration palpable as she reflected on the judgment handed down by Justice B.M. Balarabe.
The case of the Gbagyi six, three of whom the prosecution presented at the High Court for trial, were arrested in January 2014 following a violent clash rooted in a land dispute in Jere chiefdom, Kagarko Local Government Area of Kaduna, has become yet another stark illustration of Nigeria’s troubled justice system, where prolonged detention, denied bail, and questionable verdicts have turned courtrooms into instruments of persecution rather than justice.
A Conflict Born of Land and Power.
The story begins in early January 2014, along the road from SSC Jere to Bwari in Kagarko Local Government Area. Dr. Sa’ad Usman, the Emir of Jere and husband of former Finance Minister, Senator Nenadi Usman, was traveling when he encountered a gathering of Gbagyi youths who stopped him. What happened next remains disputed. According to the Jere Traditional Council, one Ayuba Barde who was the first Defendant in the case but was not presented before the Court shouted at the traditional ruler, which led to a violent altercation in which the Chief, his driver, and police orderly were attacked with machetes and axes. The Gbagyi community told a different story: they claimed the Chief of Jere had for long formed the habit of confiscating lands from Gbagyi natives in Jere chiefdom with impunity, and that the most recent incident involved the destruction of food crops belonging to Ayuba Barde. Ayuba Barde was first shot by the orderly of the Chief following which a melee ensued.
A State Security Service source confirmed that serious crisis had been brewing in the area, with the Gbagyi people writing that their ancestral lands were being seized by the Fulani Emir. According to court documents, the incident left both the Chief and Ayuba Barde requiring hospitalization. In the days following the January 3, 2014 clash, Kaduna State Police Commissioner Olufemi Adenaike confirmed that several persons were arrested and would be detained until all principal characters could speak. Among those arrested were individuals who would spend the next 11 years fighting charges that evolved from “inciting disturbance” and “causing grievous hurt” to the far more serious charges of culpable homicide, and conspiracy.
A Trial Without End.
The Defendants ‘s Journey through Nigeria’s judicial system reads like a kafkaesque nightmare. They were first arraigned before a Magistrate Court, then transferred to the High Court. Their case moved from Justice Gideon Kurada, who granted them bail, to Justice Bashir Sukola, who also granted them bail, but on terms they could not meet despite repeated applications for review. Justice Sukola eventually died, and the file moved to Justice Binta F. Zubairu, who started the case afresh. After five years before Justice Zubairu, the longest period in their ordeal, the judge was elevated to the Court of Appeal just as the defense was set to open. The case then landed with Justice Buhari M. Balarabe, who again started the proceedings afresh. “The prosecution was not within reasonable time,” Ballason emphasized. “The trial took 11 years.”Throughout this period, the Defendants remained in custody. According to Ballason, Justice Balarabe’s court refused to take the bail application until after the hearings concluded, a decision she describes as “a violation of the right to fair hearing and presumption of innocence until proven guilty. “The Nigerian Constitution is explicit on this matter. Section 35(4) mandates that any person arrested or detained must be brought before a court within a reasonable time, and if not tried within two months (for those in custody) or three months (for those on bail), they must be released. Yet the Gbagyi defendants spent over a decade in pretrial detention.
A Judgment That Raises Questions.
On November 19, 2025, Justice Balarabe delivered his verdict. The court found the defendants guilty of conspiracy and intention to commit culpable homicide. Notably, the defendants were not found guilty of culpable homicide itself, as the prosecution could not prove that Dr. Sa’ad Usman, who died on April 1, 2020, died as a result of an incident that occurred six years prior in January 2014. Dr. Usman had been hospitalized in London following the 2014 altercation and battled with injuries for years before his death in 2020. The court could not establish beyond reasonable doubt that his 2020 death was directly caused by the 2014 incident. Yet the defendants received five years for conspiracy and ten years for “intention to commit culpable homicide,” to run concurrently. Combined with the 11 years already served, they face a total of 21 years imprisonment. “To hand down 21 years imprisonment for conspiracy and intention to commit culpable homicide is not contemplated by Justice,” Ballason stated. “The punishment is excessive.”She pointed to critical gaps in the prosecution’s case: “The medical report as to the cause of death of Dr. Sa’ad Usman was not tendered as evidence, which would have been grounds linking the defendants with the alleged offence. It was not properly established by the prosecution that there was no break in the chain of causation.”
The Prosecution counsel led by J.N. Dan’azumi Esq, Solicitor General of the Kaduna Ministry of Justice, had hoped for capital punishment on the charges they filed before the Court but declined to react to the judgement on the records.
Echoes of Sunday Jackson.
The Gbagyi case bears disturbing similarities to another controversial verdict that has outraged Nigerians: the death sentence handed to Sunday Jackson, a farmer from Adamawa State. In 2015, Jackson was working on his farm in Kodomti Community when a herdsman, Buba Ardo Bawuro, herded his cattle into Jackson’s farm to feed on his crops. When Jackson confronted him, the herdsman attacked Jackson with a knife, stabbing him. In the ensuing struggle, Jackson managed to disarm his attacker and fatally stabbed him in the neck.Jackson was arrested and charged with murder despite his consistent assertion that he acted in self-defense. After years of trial marked by delays and procedural irregularities, he was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. In March 2025, the Supreme Court of Nigeria upheld Jackson’s death sentence, with the court reasoning that having seized the dagger, Jackson no longer faced an imminent threat and should have fled instead of retaliating with deadly force. The verdict sparked national and international outrage. Legal luminary Mike Ozekhome, SAN called the Supreme Court’s position “unrealistic and disconnected from the realities of violent encounters,” noting that the notion that Jackson had a clear opportunity to flee while entangled in a fight with an armed opponent was speculative and a dangerous oversimplification. It later emerged that Justice Helen Ogunwumiju, the most senior judge on the appeal panel, had issued a dissenting judgment that was initially omitted from the certified true copy. She ruled it was a case of self-defense. “In the circumstances, I am of the view that the defence of self defence avails the Appellant and that his response was not excessive. It is my view that the judgment of the two lower Courts should be set aside as a miscarriage of justice”. – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C. Both cases, the Gbagyi defendants and Sunday Jackson emerge from the same context: Nigeria’s deadly farmer-herder conflicts, where disputes over land and livelihood frequently turn violent. In both cases, those who claim to have defended themselves or their property face the full weight of the criminal justice system, while questions persist about whether justice has truly been served.
The Broader Context: Gbagyi Marginalization.
The Gbagyi people are one of the most populous ethnic groups in the middle belt and among the bonafide owners of the Nigerian capital city, Abuja. When Abuja was chosen as Nigeria’s new federal capital, the Gbagyi were the largest among the ethnic groups that inhabited the land proposed for development, resulting in dislocation and the removal of people from their ancestral homes.The Gbagyi people are known to be peace-loving, transparent, and accommodating. Northerners often say in Hausa language “muyi shi Gwari Gwari,” meaning “let’s do it like the Gbagyi” or “in the Gbagyi way”. Yet their perceived docility has sometimes worked against them.Across the north, it is believed that the Gbagyi lost most of their ancestral lands to other tribes because of their laid-back attitude. The 2014 incident in Jere was rooted in exactly such tensions, a community feeling their lands were being systematically taken from them, with their appeals to authorities going unheeded. The defendants’ legal team believes their clients were not fairly treated. “Courts have a duty to not only do justice but to ensure that a reasonable man can come to the conclusion that justice was done.”
What This Means for Nigeria As Nigeria grapples with ongoing security challenges, from banditry in the Northwest to terrorism in the Middle Belt and North central that have claimed thousands of lives.
The cases of the Gbagyi four and Sunday Jackson send a chilling message: defending oneself or one’s property may be criminalized while attackers escape accountability. “Section 35(4) of the 1999 Constitution provides that any person arrested or detained shall be brought before a court within a reasonable time,” Ballason emphasized. “This constitutional provision was argued along with the bail application, but the court refused to take the bail application until the conclusion of hearing. This is against the law. “She continued: “No administrative issue can override the right to fair and timely trial. Eleven years for a criminal trial under a democracy is simply not justifiable. “The defendants plan to appeal the November 19 judgment. They argue that beyond the excessive punishment, the necessary elements of the alleged offenses were not properly examined, the medical evidence linking Dr. Usman’s 2020 death to the 2014 incident was never produced, and the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of causation. As the four men begin what could be another decade behind bars, having already lost 11 years of their lives, their case stands as a stark reminder of the urgent need for judicial reform in Nigeria. The scales of justice, many argue, have tipped dangerously out of balance. “It is essential to recognize the importance of timely justice and justice according to law,” Ballason concluded.
For the Gbagyi defendants, and for Sunday Jackson still on death row, the question remains: When will Nigeria’s justice system deliver the justice its name promises? The defendants have confirmed they will file an appeal challenging both the conviction and the sentencing. Meanwhile, growing calls for clemency for Sunday Jackson continue, with human rights organizations and religious bodies urging the Adamawa State governor to exercise his constitutional power of pardon.