•Says president acted in haste

From Godwin Tsa, Abuja

In a twist of faith, the Supreme Court has faulted the presidential pardon granted to Maryam Sanda, who was in 2020 sentenced to death by hanging for killing her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, during a domestic dispute.

President Bola Tinubu had in the exercise of his constitutional powers under Section 175 of the 1999 constitution, reduced Sanda’s sentence to 12 years imprisonment on compassionate grounds.

But in a judgment yesterday, the Supreme Court, in a split decision of four-to-one, affirmed the death sentence handed down on Sanda by the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which upheld the decision of a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sentencing her to death by hanging.

Justice Adumein held that it was wrong for the Executive to seek to exercise its power of pardon over a case of culpable homicide, in respect of which an appeal was pending.

The jurist held in the opening part of the lead majority judgment that it was wrong for the Executive to seek to exercise its power of pardon over a case of culpable homicide, in respect of which an appeal was  pending.

Justice Adumein quoted from past decisions of both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal where the courts had disparaged the act of the Executive for granting pardon to a convict of a capital offence while an appeal against the conviction was still pending.

He held that the pardon granted to Sanda did not take away the court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal.

Justice Adumein added: “By Section 233(2)(d) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court, to hear and determine appeal from the Court of Appeal where, as in this case, a decision of a death sentence was affirmed.

“I do not think that this jurisdiction can be affected by the grant of pardon by the Executive when an appeal against the death sentence is still pending in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

“When an appeal against a death sentence is pending, it is better and safer to delay granting amnesty or pardon to the convicted person.

“The grant of pardon during the pendency of appeal does not prevent the court from proceeding to determine the appeal on the merit,” he said.

Meanwhile, the apex court, in its majority judgment, resolved all the issues raised in the appeal filed against her and dismissed the appeal for being without merit.

Reading the lead judgment, Justice Moore Adumein held that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt as required and that the Court of Appeal was right to have affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Justices Uwani Abba-Aji, Ibrahim Saulawa and Chidiebere Uwa agreed with the lead majority judgment, while Justice Emmanuel Agim dissented. In his dissenting judgment, Justice Agim allowed the appeal and set aside Sanda’s conviction and sentence.