Outrage Trails Presidential Pardon Of 175
THECONSCIENCE NG reports that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent decision to pardon 175 convicts including individuals found guilty of drug trafficking, illegal mining, kidnapping, murder, and coup plotting has triggered widespread backlash, legal scrutiny, and accusations of political motivation.
Among the most vocal critics are former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), who argue that the gesture undermines the justice system and represents an abuse of presidential privilege.
Breakdown of the Pardons
Following a Council of State meeting, President Tinubu exercised his powers under Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to grant clemency to a broad list of convicts. According to Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Information, the beneficiaries include:
41 illegal miners
28 drug traffickers
22 individuals convicted of murder
Others convicted of corruption, treason, and violent crimes
Also on the list are notable figures such as Major General Mamman Vatsa, Professor Magaji Garba, Maryam Sanda (convicted of murdering her husband), and posthumously, environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and other members of the Ogoni Nine.
Onanuga defended the decision, stating it was based on reports of good behaviour, remorse, age, health, and educational efforts such as enrolment in the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN).
Atiku, Legal Experts Slam the Decision
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar criticised the move as “reckless and conniving,” warning it erodes the moral authority of government. He stated:
“When a government begins to absolve offenders of the very crimes it claims to be fighting, it emboldens lawlessness and diminishes the sanctity of justice.”
Atiku further referenced President Tinubu’s past drug-related allegations in the U.S., arguing that the pardons send a dangerous signal both domestically and internationally particularly as nearly 30% of those pardoned were convicted drug traffickers.
“At a time when Nigeria reels under the weight of insecurity, moral decay, and rising drug offences, this clemency is indefensible,” he said.
Legal Community Divided
Legal practitioners also weighed in. Lawyer Joel Ighalo criticised the pardon as a misuse of executive discretion:
“It is a bastardisation of the prerogative of mercy. Releasing murderers and traffickers who haven’t served half their sentences is inexcusable.”
Alloy Ejimakor, another lawyer, stated the Constitution gives the President wide leeway in exercising the prerogative of mercy, but warned against undermining judicial efforts.
Similarly, Douglas Ogbankwa, convener of the Vanguard for the Independence of the Judiciary, noted the process cannot be challenged legally but urged caution:
“For public safety, those released should be monitored. If they begin regrouping, security agencies must intervene promptly.”
He added that the President relies on recommendations from the Office of the Attorney-General and the Nigerian Correctional Service, warning that poor vetting may result in serious lapses.
Human Rights Groups Alarmed
HURIWA condemned the move as a “dangerous contradiction” to the government’s anti-crime rhetoric. The group accused the administration of prioritising political optics over national security.
“This pardon of over 60 drug offenders exposes the government’s lacklustre attitude toward combating narcotics,” said Emmanuel Onwubiko, HURIWA’s National Coordinator.
He also linked the timing of the clemency to political considerations ahead of the 2027 elections.
Push for Reform: Exclude Corrupt Politicians
Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), has proposed constitutional reforms to bar individuals convicted of corruption from future presidential pardons.
“Those found guilty of corruption should not benefit from the prerogative of mercy. This should serve as a deterrent,” he said at a recent ICPC event.
Public Backlash Over High-Profile Pardons
Although some saw the inclusion of figures like Herbert Macaulay, Mamman Vatsa, and the Ogoni Nine as symbolic steps toward national reconciliation, others decried the inclusion of notorious individuals like Maryam Sanda and convicted fraudsters.
Activists argue that posthumous pardons, such as those for the Ogoni Nine, are insufficient without full exoneration, and merely symbolic without addressing the historical injustices they faced.
A History of Controversial Pardons
Tinubu’s pardons are the latest in a long line of contentious clemency decisions in Nigeria’s political history. Past examples include:
Shagari (1982): Amnesty to Biafran leader Chukwuemeka Ojukwu, seen as a reconciliation gesture.
Babangida: Frequent use of clemency for political consolidation.
Obasanjo: Pardoned allies, including those convicted of coups; faced criticism for politicising the process.
Yar’Adua: Launched the Niger Delta Amnesty Programme for militants widely praised.
Jonathan (2013): Sparked outrage by pardoning ex-Bayelsa governor Diepreye Alamieyeseigha.
Buhari: Pardoned two convicted former governors in 2022, claiming health reasons.
Between Mercy and Justice
While the Constitution clearly empowers the President to grant clemency, critics argue that the discretionary nature of the process often breeds political patronage and undermines the rule of law.
Akeem Aponmade, Principal Counsel at A.O. Aponmade & Co., emphasised the importance of transparency:
“The Presidential Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy makes these recommendations. Victims would feel more reassured if the process was open and if they were consulted.”
He stressed that while the law allows clemency, its application carries significant moral and social weight.
As Nigeria grapples with growing insecurity, corruption, and social decay, President Tinubu’s pardons have reignited the national debate on how executive mercy should be applied and whether it serves justice or subverts it.
While defenders cite constitutional backing, critics warn that selective forgiveness especially for politically connected individuals undermines deterrence and public trust in the justice system.
