Follow Us on Google
President Bola Tinubu recently reviewed the list of convicted persons earlier granted state pardon and dropped some controversial names. The review came on the heels of public outrage over the granting of clemency to 175 convicted persons, including drug barons, murderers and many felons. No fewer than 55 persons were removed from the presidential pardon list. These included individuals convicted of grievous crimes.
The President also issued instruments granting pardon and clemency to the affected individuals, and reduced the sentences of some convicts across the country. Only 120 names were granted pardon by the President in exercise of his constitutional power of prerogative of mercy.
According to the Special Adviser on Information and Strategy to the President, Bayo Onanuga, the new list with 120 names was made after consultations with the Council of State and extensive public input. Consequently, the reviewed list and signed instruments had been transmitted to the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCS) for implementation in line with the duly signed instruments of release. Onanuga also explained that the concept of justice as a three-way traffic for the accused, the victim and the state/society guided the review of the presidential pardon list.
It is commendable that the President had listened to the people and revisited the list. By this singular act, the President has eloquently demonstrated that he is a democrat. He has also shown his willingness to listen to the people. It is good that the names of those convicted of heinous crimes such as kidnapping, drug-related offences, human trafficking, fraud, unlawful possession of firearms/arms and other serious criminal offences were removed from the list of pardoned persons.
To have them freed would have endangered society, their victims and the law enforcement agents involved in their matters. It would further traumatise their victims, who are still suffering from the harm and anguish caused by the criminals. In addition, the sweeping pardon would have negatively affected the morale of law enforcement agents who would, going forward, see their jobs as a waste of time. Therefore, the review of the earlier list of pardoned criminals is in public interest.
From all indications, it seems the earlier list of persons for presidential pardon was compiled without due diligence and consultation with relevant government agencies and concerned stakeholders. Although the clemency was announced shortly after the recent Council of State meeting, it was obvious that the necessary due process was apparently overlooked. Even though the pardon was informed by the President’s desire to balance justice with compassion and the belief that justice must not only punish, but also reform, it ought to have duly followed the normal constitutional process.
Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) states clearly that “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 to any person a respite, either for an indefinite or for a specified period, of the execution of any punishment imposed on that person for such an offence; or (d) remit the whole or any part of any punishment imposed on that person for such an offence or of any penalty or forfeiture otherwise due to the State on account of such an offence.”
Therefore, the prerogative of mercy should not be used to grant clemency to criminals whose activities inflicted emotional and psychological harm on individuals and destroyed many lives. Doing so will embolden more people to embrace crime with the hope that they will one day be granted presidential pardon. Also, it will motivate other convicted criminals to agitate for their own release, thus making a mockery of the country’s punitive system.
Going forward, there is need for wider consultation and scrutiny before the President can exercise his prerogative of mercy. We say this considering the embarrassment caused the nation by the recent exercise. Instructively, the President has directed the relocation of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy’s Secretariat to the Federal Ministry of Justice and mandated new guidelines requiring input from prosecuting agencies before future pardons.
We advise that this order should be carried out forthwith. Above all, there should be stipulated conditions that convicted persons must meet before they can benefit from presidential pardon. The process must be thorough and transparent.
