Nigerians were taken by surprise on Thursday, October 9, 2025, when President Bola Ahmed Tinubu announced the pardon granted 175 Nigerians, all convicted by the third tier of the government – the Judiciary (in a democratic setting).
Out of the total number, 82 were granted full pardon, 65 had their sentences reduced while seven death-row inmates had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment.
There were also 15 ex-convicts, 11 of them deceased, including the Ogoni Nine, who received full pardon.
Prominent among the convicts were the former member of the Federal House of Representatives, 62 year old Farouk Lawan, who was sentenced to five years in 2021 for Corrupt Practices and had served the sentence; 37 year Maryam Sanda, who was sentenced to death in 2020 for culpable homicide and had spent six years, eight months at Suleja Medium Security Custodial Centre.
President Tinubu made it known that the reason for her pardon was that her family pleaded, and that it was in the best interest of her two children.
“The plea was also anchored on her good conduct in jail, her remorse, and her embracement of a new lifestyle, demonstrating her commitment to being a model prisoner.”
Also notable are 44 year old Nweke Francis Chibueze, who was serving a life sentence at Kirikiri for cocaine; 67 year old Dr. Nwogu Peters, who was Serving a 17-year jail term for fraud; 63 year old Mrs. Anastasia Daniel Nwaoba, who had already served her sentence for fraud as well as 58 year old Barrister Hussaini Alhaji Umar, who was Sentenced in 2023 to pay a fine of N150 million in the ICPC case, as well as 63 year old Ayinla Saadu Alanamu, who was sentenced to seven years for bribery in 2019 and has served the sentence.
The presidential pardon, by the provisions of the Nigerian constitution 1999 (as amended) cannot be contested, for, it provides the legal foundation for presidential pardon, including for criminals and convicted politicians. This power is rooted in the “Prerogative of Mercy” vested in the President.
Section 175 of the said Constitution grants the President the power of prerogative of mercy, which reads: The President may:
(a) grant any person concerned with or convicted of any offence created by an Act of the National Assembly a pardon, either free or subject to lawful conditions; (b) grant a reprieve, that is, a temporary suspension of the execution of any punishment imposed; (c) substitute a less severe form of punishment for any punishment imposed; or (d) remit the whole or any part of any punishment imposed or of any penalty or forfeiture otherwise due to the Government of the Federation.
As a matter of fact, the powers conferred on the President under subsection 1 are expected to be exercised after consultation with the Council of State.
Still, the provision says that the President’s powers could be exercised in respect of:
(a) persons concerned with offences tried by any court or tribunal constituted by federal law; and (b) persons convicted of any offence against the law of any State, but only after consultation with the Governor of that State.
The constitution provides the scope of the Presidential Pardon to include pardoning any person convicted of a federal offence, e.g, corruption, economic crimes, drug offences, etc.
Any person convicted under state law can be so pardoned provided the President consults the Governor of the state. Such persons include Politicians, military officers, or public servants convicted of offences, such as corruption or abuse of office.
The civil rights of individuals so pardoned, including the right to vote, hold public office, or travel freely are restored. The conviction is forgiven, but not erased from record unless expunged by court order.
In other words, a pardon does not mean innocence; it merely forgives the offence and cancels the legal consequences.
While we in Greenbarge Reporters online newspaper are not arguing on the constitutional powers of the President to pardon, in consultation with members of the Council of State (made up of, among others, past Presidents and Heads of Government, present and past Chief Judges of the Nigerian, etc), we are however, appalled, like many Nigerians, by the obvious disregard for morality, integrity and sanity in the Tinubu’s arranged presidential pardon.
It is curious that a woman who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death since 2020 (five years now) lived up to October 8, 2025 to enjoy the presidential pardon. This is true also of others who are serving various criminal jail terms, having been convicted by competent Court of justice, and were eventually released into what is supposed to be a sane society, in the name of clemency by the President.
After pardoning Maryam Sanda, for example, is the president going to bring back to life, the husband she killed? Are the victims of others who are so pardoned going to be compensated? It is clear that while the families of those that were pardoned would be jubilating, the families of their victims would reel in fresh pain: they would feel cheated, to the point of feeling the reality of injustice in its naked form.
To think that Farouk Lawal and others who were serving or have served jail terms over offences against the state and humanity are now free like birds in the air to vie for the governorship, and even presidential election in Nigeria makes the whole thing to look laughable and unimaginable.
Presidential pardon to convicted politicians, some of who have already served out their jail terms clearly undermine anti-corruption efforts which the same government claims to be fighting.
There is no running away from the fact that the latest pardons were politically motivated as the country heads to the 2027 general elections, and Presidential election in particular. An observer, perhaps in anger, vented out an opinion that soon, President Tinubu would come up with the idea of pardoning all the prisoners in the country, even including Nnamdi Kanu in his desperate bid to outdo all opponents in the 2027 election. With the way things are going, this point may not be far from the truth.
Indeed, the presidential pardons are becoming so suspicious, to the point of undermining the rule of law, and conversely, giving criminals in and outside government, the hope and confidence that come what may, they would always come out of the temporary judicial convictions (for corruption and criminalities) victorious. As a matter of fact, the concept of Presidential pardon, especially with regard to the one President Tinubu had just pronounced, would go deeper to weaken public trust in the judicial process and anti-corruption campaigns, at best, and at worse, obliterate it (Public trust) completely. The public sanity is bound to suffer erosion!!!
