In a decisive move that has sent ripples across Nigeria’s justice and political landscape, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has formally signed a new Instrument of Clemency and Pardons—but not without controversy. Following intense consultations with the Council of State, senior judicial officers, and public opinion, Tinubu ordered a sweeping review of the list of individuals initially slated for pardon under his administration’s prerogative of mercy program. The outcome of that review, released through a State House statement signed by his Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, marks a dramatic policy correction that underscores the President’s attempt to balance justice, security, and compassion.
At the center of the review is a striking decision: individuals convicted of serious crimes—including kidnapping, human trafficking, large-scale fraud, drug-related offences, and arms trafficking—have been removed from the list entirely. Others previously marked for release have had their sentences merely commuted rather than wiped clean. The move, while applauded by many, represents a cautious recalibration of a sensitive constitutional power that has historically been subject to political manipulation and public outrage.
The Anatomy of a Presidential Power
Under Section 175 (1) and (2) of the Nigerian Constitution (as amended), the President possesses discretionary powers to grant pardons, commute sentences, or remit penalties for persons convicted of offences against federal law. But such powers, though legal, are rarely free from ethical dilemmas or public scrutiny. Since the return to democratic rule in 1999, each Nigerian president—from Olusegun Obasanjo to Muhammadu Buhari—has exercised this prerogative at least once, often sparking controversy about the selection process and the criteria used to identify beneficiaries.
Tinubu’s intervention appears to mark a conscious departure from past excesses. According to inside sources close to the Presidential Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy (PACPM), the initial list—drafted during the early months of 2025—contained several names that raised eyebrows within the security community. Among them were individuals convicted of heinous crimes that had directly undermined national security. The inclusion of such persons reportedly caused unease within the Nigeria Correctional Service (NCoS) and senior members of the Council of State, who feared the political and moral implications of releasing such offenders into society.
A Public Outcry and the President’s Response
When news of the pardon list first leaked earlier this year, it triggered a wave of backlash on social media and in civil society circles. Advocacy groups questioned why individuals convicted of armed robbery, human trafficking, or terrorism-related activities should benefit from government leniency at a time when insecurity and public mistrust in the justice system were soaring.
A senior administration official who spoke anonymously said, “The President received feedback from multiple fronts—civil society, security agencies, even international partners—urging him to review the list. He felt personally that some of the names violated the spirit of justice and the expectations of Nigerians.”
The outcry reportedly reached the Presidency in mid-September, prompting Tinubu to direct the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice to reconvene the Advisory Committee for an urgent review. This process culminated in the October 29 announcement, where the Presidency confirmed that convicts of grave crimes had been struck off.
Balancing Mercy with Security
The Presidency’s statement makes it clear that the revised decision was not purely administrative—it was guided by broader national security considerations. “This action became necessary in view of the seriousness and security implications of some of the offences, the need to be sensitive to the feelings of victims of the crimes and society in general, and the need to boost the morale of law enforcement agencies,” the release stated.
Analysts have interpreted this as part of a larger effort by the Tinubu administration to restore faith in the justice system and support law enforcement institutions that have come under pressure from widespread insecurity. “Releasing people convicted of kidnapping or arms trafficking would have been an unforgivable signal,” said Dr. Okon Effiong, a criminologist and lecturer at the University of Calabar. “In a country where those crimes have become normalized, the government had to show that its compassion has limits.”
The President’s emphasis on the “three-way traffic of justice”—the rights of the accused, the suffering of victims, and the security of the state—has resonated with many Nigerians who feel that mercy must not come at the expense of justice.
Institutional Reforms: Relocating the Mercy Committee
Beyond revising the pardon list, Tinubu also took an administrative step that could reshape how future clemency exercises are conducted. He ordered the immediate relocation of the Secretariat of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy from the Ministry of Special Duties to the Federal Ministry of Justice.
According to the Presidency, this move will ensure “closer alignment with the justice system” and strengthen due process. In practical terms, the relocation means the Ministry of Justice will now oversee documentation, verification, and legal compliance for all future pardon recommendations. This is a significant departure from previous administrations, where such decisions were handled more politically than judicially.
The President further directed the Attorney General to issue new Guidelines for the Exercise of the Power of Prerogative of Mercy, which would make consultation with relevant prosecuting agencies—such as the EFCC, NDLEA, DSS, and Nigeria Police Force—compulsory before any name can be considered.
Legal experts have hailed this reform as a long-overdue safeguard. “For too long, the power of mercy has been exercised as a political tool,” said human rights lawyer Abdul Mahmud. “Moving it under the Justice Ministry and demanding prosecutorial input is the right step toward institutional accountability.”
The Political Undertones
While the Presidency’s tone is reformist, political analysts believe the move also carries strategic implications. President Tinubu’s administration, still grappling with public skepticism and security crises across multiple fronts, has been under pressure to demonstrate moral leadership.
By pruning the list and excluding those convicted of serious crimes, the government sends a signal of firmness—one that contrasts sharply with past controversies such as the 2022 pardon of two former governors convicted of corruption under President Buhari. Those pardons—granted to Joshua Dariye (Plateau State) and Jolly Nyame (Taraba State)—drew nationwide criticism and were widely seen as politically motivated.
Tinubu, analysts say, appears determined not to repeat that mistake. “This is about optics and credibility,” said political commentator Dr. Kemi Falade. “By showing that he can reject political pressure and act in the national interest, Tinubu is trying to rebuild public trust at a time when Nigerians have grown cynical about governance.”
Voices from the Justice Sector
Reaction within the judiciary has been largely positive. Several senior judges privately commended the President’s decision, noting that it aligns with judicial ethics and constitutional safeguards. One senior judge of the Federal High Court, speaking off record, said: “This is a welcome correction. Mercy is noble, but it must not make nonsense of justice. When convicts of heinous crimes are pardoned without transparency, it weakens faith in the system.”
Officials at the Nigerian Correctional Service have also confirmed that they have received the updated list of eligible beneficiaries and are processing the necessary releases “in line with the signed instruments of release.” Sources indicate that the final list includes primarily non-violent offenders, individuals with health conditions, and those who have shown genuine reform during incarceration.
A Test of Tinubu’s Justice Reform Agenda
President Tinubu’s latest action fits into his broader agenda to modernize Nigeria’s justice system and strengthen rule of law institutions. In recent months, his administration has initiated discussions on constitutional amendments to accelerate court proceedings, reduce congestion in correctional facilities, and improve access to justice.
By reaffirming his “commitment to judicial reforms and the improvement of the administration of justice in Nigeria,” as stated in the press release, Tinubu appears to be positioning his presidency as one that blends compassion with discipline. But whether these reforms will endure beyond symbolic gestures remains to be seen.
Civil society groups have already begun calling for transparency in how the new clemency guidelines will be applied. “The public must be able to track who gets pardoned and why,” said Aisha Danladi, Executive Director of Justice Watch Nigeria. “If these processes remain opaque, then this review will be just another elite exercise dressed in reformist language.”
Looking Ahead
As Nigeria continues to grapple with mounting insecurity, corruption, and prison overcrowding, the debate over presidential pardons is likely to persist. While some view clemency as an act of humanity essential to a just society, others fear it can too easily become a backdoor for impunity.
For President Tinubu, this decision represents both a political and moral balancing act. In choosing to exclude convicts of severe crimes while affirming his constitutional authority, he has sought to reclaim a measure of public trust and demonstrate a firmer grasp of justice.
Whether this marks the beginning of a more transparent era in Nigeria’s clemency system—or merely another momentary political correction—will depend on how faithfully the new directives are implemented and how consistently the rule of law is applied going forward.
For now, the message is clear: mercy under Tinubu’s presidency will not come at the cost of justice.
Post a Comment