President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on October 9, 2025, granted clemency to 175 convicts under the constitutional powers of the Prerogative of Mercy, as provided in Section 175 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution. The gesture, intended to address alleged past injustices, promote reconciliation, and advance justice sector reforms, instead ignited widespread public outrage.
The backlash stemmed from the inclusion of individuals convicted of severe crimes, including kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, and other serious offences. While the presidential pardon is legally grounded, many citizens and analysts argued that the move violated the moral expectations of justice, reopened emotional wounds for victims’ families, and weakened the deterrent effect required for public safety. What should have been an act of compassion quickly turned into a test of credibility for the administration.
To his credit, President Tinubu reacted promptly to the wave of criticism. Twenty days later — on October 29, 2025 — after consultations with the Council of State, he ordered a complete review of the clemency list. Individuals convicted of major crimes were removed, and several sentences were adjusted.
He further directed that the Secretariat of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy be moved from the Ministry of Special Duties to the Federal Ministry of Justice. While this was widely welcomed, many believe it is only a first step. The entire pardon process, they argue, requires a full-scale investigation and comprehensive reform.
Nigerians are demanding clarity: Who recommended these individuals? What criteria were used? And did the Advisory Committee and the Council of State perform their roles diligently? If the process was influenced by vested interests, those responsible must be identified and held accountable — not to satisfy revenge, but to rebuild public trust and reinforce the principle that no one is above the law.
The controversy has also raised concerns about the placement of such a sensitive responsibility under political appointees within Special Duties. It equally questions why members of the Council of State failed to identify the anomalies before approval. Should their role simply be to endorse decisions without thorough scrutiny?
Going forward, stakeholders insist that Nigeria needs a transparent, criteria-based pardon framework grounded in fairness, ethical review, and accountability. Only cases involving wrongful conviction, terminal illness, or genuine national reconciliation should qualify.
Justice must not be compromised. Until individuals who manipulate processes face real consequences — whether in government offices or advisory committees — Nigeria will continue to grapple with entrenched impunity.
—
