… urges Sen Dino Melaye and failed politicians not to mislead Nigerians on President’s clemency
When President Bola Tinubu released the list of 175 convicts granted presidential pardon, the reaction across Nigeria was swift and fierce. Social media erupted in anger, radio programmes were flooded with calls of outrage, and newspaper columns filled with condemnations. To many Nigerians, this decision felt like a betrayal – particularly when they saw names linked to serious crimes like murder and drug trafficking.
The reason for the anger is completely clear. For every Nigerian who has been a victim of crime, for every family that has lost a loved one to violence, the idea that those convicted of such offences could walk free feels like justice has been mocked. The pain behind this reaction is real, and it comes from a place of genuine suffering.
However, it is easy to identify that the loudest voices in this chorus of condemnation are not always the most informed. A significant portion of the outrage appears politically motivated, a convenient cudgel for opponents to beat the administration with. Meanwhile, much of the genuine public anger stems from a simple lack of awareness—a failure to understand that the prerogative of mercy is not a strange African phenomenon, but a standard, if controversial, tool of statecraft in democracies worldwide.
However, after careful consideration of the facts, the law, and what is truly best for our nation, we must take a stand that may be unpopular but is necessary: President Tinubu acted correctly, constitutionally, and in line with practices common in democracies worldwide.
Let us be clear about what this pardon is not. It is not an exoneration. These individuals remain convicted criminals. Their freedom is conditional and can be revoked. This action does not erase their crimes or the suffering of their victims. What it does is recognise that after serving substantial portions of their sentences, and under specific circumstances, the state can exercise mercy.
The process behind this decision was neither rushed nor secretive. The Presidential Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy, chaired by Attorney General Lateef Fagbemi, included representatives from the Nigeria Correctional Service, the Nigeria Police Force, the National Human Rights Commission, and both the Christian Association of Nigeria and the Nigeria Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs. This diverse committee reviewed medical reports, prison conduct records, and appeals from families and civil society before making their recommendations. The final list then received approval from the National Council of State, comprising all 36 state governors, the Vice President, Senate President, Speaker of the House, and former chief justices.
Now, let us address the elephant in the room: the argument that certain crimes are too serious to ever merit pardon. This position, while emotionally understandable, ignores both our constitution and global practice.
The Nigerian Constitution grants the President broad power to exercise the “prerogative of mercy.” This power does not exclude any crime. More importantly, looking at the United States – a country we often hold up as a democratic model – reveals that even the most serious offences are regularly considered for clemency.
Consider these American examples:
President Donald Trump, despite his tough rhetoric on drugs, commuted the sentence of Larry Hoover, leader of the Gangster Disciples – a violent drug empire responsible for countless murders and over $100 million in annual drug sales. Trump also pardoned individuals involved in the January 6th insurrection, an act that threatened the very foundation of American democracy.
President Bill Clinton pardoned his own brother, Roger Clinton, for cocaine distribution. He also pardoned 16 members of the FALN, a Puerto Rican nationalist group responsible for a campaign of bombings across the United States.
President Barack Obama commuted the sentences of over 1,000 individuals convicted of drug offences, stating he was correcting “historic wrongs” in the justice system.
President Gerald Ford pre-emptively pardoned former President Richard Nixon for the Watergate scandal – one of the most celebrated corruption cases in American history.
In every one of these cases, American public opinion was sharply divided. Victims’ families were outraged. Political opponents cried corruption. Yet the presidents acted because the power of clemency exists precisely for these difficult cases where mercy and state interest might temper strict legal judgment.
The reality of our prison system provides another compelling reason for this decision. Our prisons are not centres of rehabilitation; they are overcrowded warehouses of human despair where minor offenders become hardened criminals. By selectively releasing elderly, infirm, or demonstrably reformed individuals, the state is performing critical triage. It is acknowledging a system in crisis and prioritising space and resources for the most dangerous current threats to society.
Some argue this pardon undermines the fight against crime. We believe the opposite is true. A justice system that knows only punishment and never mercy is a system that has abandoned hope. There is substantial evidence that for certain offenders who have served significant portions of their sentences and shown genuine rehabilitation, continued incarceration serves no corrective purpose. It merely fuels bitterness and wastes resources that could be better deployed in fighting active crime.
To those who say this decision is uniquely Nigerian or particularly egregious, we point to the global record. The prerogative of mercy has been exercised by American presidents to pardon terrorists, drug kingpins, corruption convicts, and even those who attacked their nation’s capital. The controversy surrounding President Tinubu’s decision is not exceptional – it is the normal, difficult conversation that accompanies this power everywhere it exists.
This does not mean we dismiss the legitimate concerns about security and justice. The government must now ensure the strict monitoring of those released and redouble efforts to prosecute those who currently terrorise our communities. The success of this decision will be measured by both the rehabilitation of the pardoned and the government’s renewed vigour in tackling current crime.
In conclusion, while public anger is understandable, governance cannot be conducted by outrage alone. President Tinubu has used a constitutional power, following a thorough process, to address both individual circumstances and systemic crisis. He has acted in line with global democratic practice, even when that practice is controversial.
The true measure of a justice system is not only its capacity to punish but also its capacity to redeem. My stand is that in this difficult balance between retribution and mercy, the President has acted correctly for the broader good of our country.
Discussion about this post