Controversy Erupts After Kaduna High Court Reportedly Sentences Victor “Zidane” Solomon to Death Amid Claims of Self‑Defence and Legal Irregularities

Controversy Erupts After Kaduna High Court Reportedly Sentences Victor “Zidane” Solomon to Death Amid Claims of Self‑Defence and Legal Irregularities

A report circulating widely on social media and messaging platforms has said that a Kaduna State High Court has sentenced Victor Solomon, popularly known as “Zidane,” to death by hanging in a murder case linked to communal violence in southern Kaduna. The development has triggered a fresh debate about legal processes, dual prosecutions and the treatment of self‑defence claims in Nigeria’s justice system. 

According to the unverified postings, which have been widely shared online in recent days, the court’s death sentence stems from the same murder charge for which Zidane was previously acquitted in a separate tribunal or state court. The report claims that the case grew out of violent clashes in Kajuru and surrounding areas of southern Kaduna, where residents of the predominantly Adara Christian community have faced repeated attacks by armed groups, including Fulani militia factions. 

Victor Solomon became a figure of local prominence after his arrest several years ago during a period of heightened insecurity in the region. Supporters and community members have described him as a community defender who took up arms in response to sustained attacks on civilian populations in the area. They contend that his arrest was politically motivated and that his prosecution represents an attempt to punish those resisting persistent insecurity and violence. 

However, there is currently no independently verified public record from Nigerian news outlets or official court releases confirming that a Kaduna High Court has condemned him to death. Reports of this sentence derive primarily from social media accounts and posts rather than mainstream or legally authoritative sources. Efforts to locate corroborating coverage in established national or regional news media did not yield confirmation of the alleged verdict at the time of writing. 

The ambiguity around Zidane’s legal status and the alleged sentencing highlights complex questions about multiple prosecutions for the same offence. Under Nigerian law, once a person has been acquitted by a competent court, the doctrine of “autrefois acquit” – which prevents an accused from being tried again on the same charge – ordinarily applies. A retrial or second conviction for the identical offence without appeal or reversal of the first acquittal would raise significant constitutional and human rights issues, including potential violations of the right to a fair hearing and protection against double jeopardy. Legal experts say that in most systems, including Nigeria’s, a defendant cannot be punished twice for the same offence once acquitted, unless the initial decision is overturned on appeal. (This principle is widely recognised in criminal law, although it could not be independently verified in Zidane’s case due to missing official records.)

If true, the situation also underscores broader concerns about the use of lethal force in self‑defence and the judiciary’s role in interpreting such claims. Claims of self‑defence arise frequently in Nigeria, particularly in areas affected by banditry, communal violence and insurgency, where individuals and communities argue they acted to protect lives and property. Some legal practitioners note that courts may be inconsistent in how they assess self‑defence, leading to allegations of unfair treatment and perceptions that outcomes can be influenced by extraneous factors rather than strict legal standards.

In October 2025, the latest available first‑hand account of Zidane’s incarceration revealed that during a prison visit, he expressed confidence that because one court had acquitted him of murder charges, subsequent proceedings in another court would also vindicate him. That hope, according to posts circulating now, was misplaced. Commentators have interpreted the situation as emblematic of a “compromised judiciary” that inhales allegations of bias and disproportionate punishment, particularly when defendants belong to minority communities or engage in self‑defence actions during communal strife.

The case of Victor Solomon, better known as Zidane, has been entangled with narratives of ethno‑religious violence in southern Kaduna, where longstanding disputes over land, political power and identity have periodically erupted into deadly conflict between Fulani herdsmen and indigenous farming communities. These tensions have drawn humanitarian concern and criticism from civil society groups, some of whom argue that state authorities have at times failed to protect vulnerable communities or have responded in ways that escalate fear and grievance.

Clarifying facts in a highly charged environment has proven difficult. At present, there is no official statement from the Kaduna State judiciary or Nigeria’s National Judicial Council confirming the alleged death sentence. There is also no authenticated court document in the public domain verifying that a trial concluded with a capital conviction for Zidane. Without confirmation from formal legal channels or independent media reporting, the precise legal status and outcome of the murder charge remain uncertain.

Experts emphasise that reports emerging from social media should be treated with caution until they can be confirmed by verifiable sources such as verified court records, official press releases, or reporting from recognised news services. In Nigeria, allegations of judicial bias or politically influenced prosecutions are not unheard of, and such claims frequently prompt calls for greater transparency, particularly in high‑profile cases involving communal violence and security operations.

Discrepancies in how cases are handled in different jurisdictions or courts can also reflect structural issues within the legal system. For example, in many jurisdictions, including Nigeria, the doctrine against double jeopardy is intended to prevent multiple prosecutions for the same offence after acquittal. Yet, local legal interpretations and procedural dynamics sometimes lead to charges being filed in separate jurisdictions or under different statutes, complicating standard legal protections. This occurs especially where overlapping criminal statutes intersect with federal and state jurisdictions or where initial procedural errors lead to retrials. Such legal complexities underscore the need for robust judicial oversight and defence rights in all criminal proceedings.

Should the claim of a death sentence be substantiated, it would raise urgent questions about the integrity and fairness of the judicial process in this case, and could trigger appeals both within Nigeria’s legal framework and potentially before regional human rights bodies, which often scrutinise capital sentences and procedural fairness in jurisdictions worldwide.

Until verified information is made available by authoritative sources, the situation remains shrouded in conflicting reports that mix community advocacy, political grievance, and contested legal narratives. What is clear, however, is that the broader context reflects deep and unresolved tensions in areas afflicted by conflict, where ordinary citizens, legal institutions and governments grapple with the boundaries between justice, self‑defence, and the rule of law in a nation striving to reconcile diverse identities, histories, and rights.

📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews