By Taiwo Okanlawon
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent pardon of 175 convicts and ex-convicts, which includes illegal miners, white-collar offenders, remorseful drug offenders, foreigners, and capital offenders such as Major General Mamman Vatsa, Major Akubo, Professor Magaji Garba, Maryam Sanda, Ken Saro-Wiwa, and the other Ogoni Eight, has stirred mixed reactions across the country.
The decision, announced on Thursday, has divided opinion among Nigerians. While some view it as an act of compassion and constitutional authority, others have described it as “pathetic” and “a national disgrace,” claiming it undermines the country’s fight against crime, drug abuse, and corruption, while damaging Nigeria’s international reputation.
Among those granted clemency is Maryam Sanda, who was sentenced to death in 2020 for the murder of her husband, Bilyamin Bello, the nephew of former PDP Chairman and ex-Minister Bello Haliru. The tragic incident, which occurred in 2017, dominated national headlines after reports revealed that Sanda stabbed her husband multiple times in the neck, chest, and genitals over allegations of infidelity.
The inclusion of Sanda’s name on the pardon list has particularly amplified public anger and disbelief.
However, beyond the outrage, there are broader constitutional and moral questions to consider.
According to reports, the President granted clemency based on evidence of remorse, good conduct, and rehabilitation. Some inmates were said to have earned forgiveness due to old age, the acquisition of vocational skills, or enrollment in the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN). The President also extended a posthumous pardon to Sir Herbert Macaulay, correcting a historic injustice committed by British colonial authorities against one of Nigeria’s foremost nationalists.
These people were in correctional facilities, not just condemned to die. The goal is rehabilitation, which means helping people change. Correctional facilities are designed not only to punish but also to reform. So, if inmates demonstrate consistent good behavior, remorse, and rehabilitation over time, then the concept of a second chance aligns with the very essence of a correctional system.
However, public outrage often stems from distrust because people worry about who gets pardoned and why. If it feels politically motivated or opaque, the reaction is naturally emotional. But if the process was transparent, backed by credible correctional reports and psychological evaluations, then yes, second chances can align with both justice and humanity.
Mercy, when fairly and transparently applied, does not weaken justice but complements it. However, when it is clouded by favoritism or secrecy, it risks becoming a moral and political liability.
Ultimately, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. And when mercy is administered with fairness, truth, and transparency, it reflects not weakness but the maturity and humanity of a nation that believes in both accountability and redemption.
Leave a Reply