By Henry Ojelu
When President Bola Tinubu announced the pardon of 175 ex-convicts earlier this month under the Federal Government’s Prerogative of Mercy, the gesture was expected to demonstrate compassion, align with the administration’s commitment to justice reform, and decongest overcrowded correctional centres across the country.
But instead of applause, the decision stirred intense controversy, rekindling old questions about the abuse of executive clemency and the moral implications of pardoning individuals convicted of serious crimes such as drug trafficking, fraud, and even murder.
While the Presidency insisted that the move followed due process and was approved by the National Council of State, many Nigerians, especially lawyers, human rights advocates and anti-corruption groups argued that the list of beneficiaries betrays the ethical foundations of justice.
The pardoned individuals included those convicted for non-violent offences, inmates who had shown “remarkable reform,” and persons of advanced age or ill health. However, public attention was more on a subset of names, especially those convicted of drug trafficking, financial fraud, and violent crimes.
Some civil society groups argued that releasing such convicts undermined the country’s anti-corruption and anti-narcotics campaigns. The Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC, and several human rights bodies described the pardon as “a reward for criminality” and “a slap in the face of law enforcement agencies.”
AGF’s clarification
In response to mounting criticism, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, issued a detailed clarification, insisting that President Tinubu’s action was guided strictly by the law and that the final list of beneficiaries was still being reviewed.
Fagbemi explained that although the Council of State had approved recommendations for clemency, the final stage requires a detailed review to ensure all names comply with legal and procedural standards.
“The Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice wishes to clarify that no inmate approved for clemency under the recent exercise of the President’s power of prerogative of mercy has been released from custody.
“The process remains at the final administrative stage, which includes a standard review to ensure that all names and recommendations fully comply with established legal and procedural requirements before any instrument of release is issued,” he stated.
He noted that the issuance of the instrument of implementation marks the last phase of the process, after which the Controller-General of the Nigerian Correctional Service will be authorised to act.
Historical perspective
Nigeria’s constitutional democracy has a long and controversial relationship with presidential pardons. The power of pardon, rooted in Section 175 (1–3) of the 1999 Constitution, allows the President to grant a pardon, either unconditional or conditional, to any person convicted of an offence created by an Act of the National Assembly.
The provision also allows the President to substitute a less severe punishment for one imposed by a court.
However, as legal scholars often note, the spirit of the law presumes such mercy to be applied prudently—especially for cases involving miscarriage of justice, old age, terminal illness, or demonstrable rehabilitation.
In practice, however, Nigerian presidents have often used the power to reward political allies or rehabilitate disgraced public figures.
Former President Goodluck Jonathan’s 2013 pardon of ex-Bayelsa Governor Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, convicted for corruption, remains one of the most infamous examples. The decision, widely condemned at home and abroad, was seen as a political favour that damaged Nigeria’s anti-corruption image.
President Olusegun Obasanjo also faced criticism for granting clemency to certain politically exposed persons. Similarly, the late President Muhammadu Buhari’s 2022 pardon of former governors Joshua Dariye (Plateau) and Jolly Nyame (Taraba)—both serving prison terms for corruption—triggered outrage.
Lawyers react
While opinions differ on the legality of Tinubu’s action, the consensus among many lawyers is that legality does not necessarily translate to morality.
The President’s action failed ethical test—Edun, SAN
Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Kunle Edun, condemned President Tinubu’s decision, arguing that it undermines public morality and the integrity of the justice system.
“Of course, the President has the discretion to determine who to grant mercy or pardon. But being a leader elected by Nigerians and holding power in trust for the people, shouldn’t such decisions be taken after deep consideration of their impact on society, victims, and ethical values?”
Edun questioned why many of those pardoned were individuals convicted of grave offences. “Majority of the names in that list really do call for concern for all Nigerians. If we are serious about ethical values, then we must ask ourselves: what message are we sending? Are we saying integrity, honesty, and hard work no longer matter?”
He added that the President’s advisers “failed to show true patriotism and commitment to the ideals that sustain a nation.
“On this, our President did not do well.We cannot claim to promote national reorientation while rewarding wrongdoing,” he concluded.
Nigeria sending signal that crime pays—Oshoma
Public affairs analyst and lawyer, Liborous Oshoma, offered a more scathing critique, describing Nigeria as “a country of weekly dramas.”
“Nobody is saying the President doesn’t have the constitutional power to grant pardon. Section 175 is clear on that. The issue is the manner it is exercised and to whom the mercy is extended,” he said.
Comparing Nigeria’s approach to international standards, Oshoma said: “In America, you must have served part of your sentence, shown remorse, and met strict criteria before you can be pardoned. But here, we saw people convicted as recently as 2023—some for drugs, fraud, even murder—being freed in one blanket declaration.”
He warned that such actions erode public trust and embolden criminals.
“What you’re telling law enforcement officers is that their work is meaningless. Tomorrow, someone who murders his wife or steals billions could just walk free because of political affiliation. That’s a terrible precedent.”
Oshoma recalled how those now in power once condemned Jonathan’s pardon of Alamieyeseigha. He said: “They’ve taken hypocrisy to another level. If this trend continues, we might as well grant pardon to every convicted kidnapper and drug lord. What message are we sending to our children?”
Prerogative of Mercy must be transparent, humane—Ufeli
Constitutional lawyer and human rights advocate, Evans Ufeli, approached the issue from a procedural and institutional perspective.
He said: “The prerogative of mercy is designed to temper the rigidity of the law—to right wrongs, correct miscarriages of justice, or respond to humanitarian concerns. It’s a vital part of the justice system.”
Ufeli emphasized, however, that the absence of statutory guidelines makes the process vulnerable to abuse. According to him: “There’s no uniform procedure nationwide. Often, the process lacks transparency, clear criteria, or victim input. This breeds suspicion and politicization.”
He urged the government to adopt reforms that would make the system more accountable. “We need statutory standards, independent advisory panels with legal and medical experts, published timelines, and mechanisms for victims’ input. Mercy should not undermine justice. Instead, it should reflect fairness, humanity, and public confidence,” he stated.
Tinubu’s action’ll undermine justice, encourage lawlessness—Inibehe
Human rights lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, condemned the President’s recent decision describing the move as one that will embolden criminality and weaken Nigeria’s justice system.
Effiong said although the President is constitutionally empowered under Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution to exercise the prerogative of mercy, such discretion must be used judiciously. He warned that indiscriminate pardons send a dangerous message to law enforcement agencies and the public that crime can go unpunished.
According to him, a presidential pardon “extinguishes” a convict’s criminal record and history, effectively erasing the consequences of their actions. He questioned the motive behind extending clemency to people who, in his view, do not deserve it. “It is curious that the President and his committee chose to pardon individuals who have not merited it,” Inibehe said.
While acknowledging that certain pardons, such as those granted posthumously to the late General Mamman Vatsa and members of the Ogoni Nine, could be morally justified, he argued that extending the same leniency to drug traffickers and convicted murderers undermines national security and the justice system.
Inibehe specifically criticised the pardon of Maryam Sanda, convicted in 2020 for killing her husband, questioning what message it sends to victims and their families.
He also dismissed claims that the pardoned inmates had been reformed, saying there is “hardly anything correctional about the Nigerian Correctional Service.”
Although he conceded that President Tinubu has constitutional authority to grant pardons, Inibehe cautioned that such power should not be exercised carelessly.
“The message being sent today is that victims have been relegated while criminals can have a field day,” he concluded.
The post Mercy on trial: Lawyers question ethics of Tinubu’s pardon appeared first on Vanguard News.
