President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent pardon of drug traffickers, illegal miners, kidnappers and coup plotters has continued to elicit mixed reactions, ranging from outrage, suspicion of political motivation and commendation from Nigerians.

Among those who criticized the gesture was former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, as well as the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), who said the rash approach makes a mockery of Nigeria’s justice system and is tantamount to an abuse of presidential privilege.

Recall that the President, shortly after the Council of State meeting, announced clemency and reprieve for a variety of malefactors and convicted felons in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy conferred on him by Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

Out of the 175 beneficiaries of the Presidential pardon, according to the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, 41 are illegal miners, 28 drug traffickers and 22 murderers topped the list.

Also included in crime forgiveness are foreigners, coup plotters and corrupt politicians, including Major General Mamman Vatsa, Major Akubo, Professor Magaji Garba, capital offenders such as Maryam Sanda as well as late Ken Saro Wiwa, and the other Ogoni Eight.

Onanuga explained that in granting the clemency, President Tinubu acted on reports that the convicts had shown remorse and good conduct, stressing some were, however, forgiven due to old age, the acquisition of new vocational skills, or enrolment in the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN).

Although the granting of a presidential pardon usually takes place during the country’s yearly independence anniversary celebration, this year’s edition remains one of the most debated elements of executive authority, as stakeholders have noted that it walks a fine line between justice and political consideration.

While the President exercises the prerogative of mercy by virtue of the Constitution legal experts explained that the power was programmed as a tool of mercy and rehabilitation, noting that the exercise of the power is not entirely unilateral, since according to them, the law mandates the involvement of the Presidential Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy and requires the advice of the Council of State.

While contending that a presidential pardon can restore lost rights and remove the punishment attached to a conviction, the experts maintain that it does not necessarily erase the conviction itself unless there is a separate act of exoneration.

But, dismissing Tinubu’s exercise of that constitutional stipulation as a show of political patronage, former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, said clemency must never be confused with complicity.

The former number two citizen argued that “when a government begins to absolve offenders of the very crimes it claims to be fighting, it erodes the moral authority of leadership and emboldens lawlessness.

While noting that Nigeria deserves a leadership that upholds justice, not one that trivializes it, Atiku maintained that what Tinubu did was both reckless and conniving, stressing that the recent presidential pardon undermines Nigeria’s justice system.

Alluding to President Tinubu’s drug-related case in the United States of America, Atiku lamented that Tinubu’s reckless exercise of Presidential Pardon will embolden criminality and diminish the judicial process of dispensation of justice.

“The decision to extend clemency to individuals convicted of grave crimes such as drug trafficking, kidnapping, murder, and corruption not only diminishes the sanctity of justice, but also sends a dangerous signal to the public and the international community about the values this government upholds.

“At a time when Nigeria continues to reel under the weight of insecurity, moral decay, and a surge in drug-related offences, it is both shocking and indefensible that the presidency would prioritize clemency for those whose actions have directly undermined national stability and social order.

“Particularly worrisome is the revelation that 29.2 per cent of those pardoned were convicted for drug-related crimes at a time when our youth are being destroyed by narcotics, and our nation is still struggling to cleanse its image from the global stain of drug offences,” Atiku stated.

Expressing similar reservations, a legal practitioner, Joel Ighalo, in a post on his X (formerly Twitter) handle said, “If you are a state prosecutor, you must go through the list to see if the President released the person you spent several months, probably years, in court, trying to put away in prison.

“If the person nurses a ‘Sicilian predilection’ to vengeance, all the best to you. Why are you releasing people who were convicted of murder, human trafficking, etc, who didn’t even serve half the length of their respective sentences? This list betrays a lack of good judgment and poor exercise of discretion.

“It is a bastardisation of the prerogative of mercy. This is inexcusable.”

Recall that the Office of the Attorney-General has recently proposed reforms to this power, which would exclude corrupt politicians from receiving pardons — a move aimed at reinforcing the country’s fight against corruption.

The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), stated that those found guilty of corruption should not be eligible for a state pardon.

The media aide to the justice minister, Kamarudeen Ogundele, had in a statement quoted Fagbemi speaking in a speech at a roundtable organised by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) for state Attorneys General in Abuja.

“I will suggest in our next constitution review exercise that we expunge those found guilty of corruption from benefiting from the powers of ‘Prerogative of Mercy’ to serve as a deterrent to others,” he said

This conversation was reignited in 2025, when President Bola Tinubu granted clemency to 175 individuals, including some high-profile posthumous pardons such as Herbert Macaulay, Maj. Gen. Mamman Vatsa and members of the Ogoni Nine.

While many praised the decision as a gesture of national healing, especially for cases tied to colonial or military-era injustices, the inclusion of controversial figures like Maryam Sanda, convicted of murdering her husband, and others for financial fraud sparked fierce public backlash.

Critics argue that such pardons weaken the justice system and send the wrong message about accountability, particularly when individuals convicted of drug trafficking or homicide are released.

In the case of the Ogoni Nine, some activists rejected the pardon outright, insisting that only a full exoneration, not mercy, would do justice to their legacy.

While defenders of the process insist it follows constitutional procedures, sceptics point to the opaque nature of selection and the recurring appearance of politically connected beneficiaries.

A lawyer, Alloy Ejimakor, said: “It is called the prerogative of mercy, thus suggesting that it lies squarely in the hands of the President and thus not subject to judicial review.”

Similarly, Douglas Ogbankwa, Convener of the Vanguard for the Independence of the Judiciary and also a lawyer, said: “The Presidential Power of Prerogative of Mercy, when exercised by the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, cannot be questioned by the provisions of the law in any way.

He, however, said for the sake of public safety and security, it must be exercised in a way that those who have been painstakingly apprehended by the security architecture are not let loose on society to unleash mayhem.”

He added that the President may not know these individuals personally, as the applications came by way of recommendations from both the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Office of the Comptroller-General of the Nigerian Correctional Service.

According to him, it behoves the statutory filters involved in this action to provide the requisite information that will enable His Excellency to make an informed decision. The lapses highlighted are traceable to the leakages in the recommending authorities.

He advised that the President should, next time, submit such recommendations to the Secret Service for scrutiny to assess the national security implications.

The lawyer further advised that the alleged beneficiaries of this “Presidential Bazaar” who are considered deadly should also be placed under close surveillance. If, for any reason, they begin regrouping, the security apparatus should intervene to arrest the situation and secure public safety and security.

Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) also criticized the President for granting presidential pardons to individuals convicted of serious crimes, including hard drug trafficking and homicide.

The rights group described the move as a “dangerous contradiction” to the government’s professed war against drug abuse and criminality.

HURIWA, a prominent pro-democracy and civil rights advocacy group, said the recent pardon of over 60 convicted drug offenders among 175 beneficiaries of presidential clemency exposes the administration’s “lackluster attitude” towards combating narcotics in Nigeria.

“It is an insult to national intelligence that political considerations—like the 2027 elections—may be influencing the decision to allow the FCT Administration to withhold public funds from the TSA, yet the same presidency cites ‘financial regulations’ to block NDLEA from retaining a legitimate share of proceeds from the very crimes it battles daily,” said Comrade Emmanuel Onwubiko, HURIWA’s National Coordinator.

Presidential Pardon: From Shagari to Tinubu

President Tinubu’s gesture is not the first of its kind to spark debate in Nigeria’s political history.

The exercise of presidential pardon has long oscillated between genuine acts of national reconciliation and outright political indulgence. The tradition began in 1982, when President Shehu Shagari granted amnesty to Chief Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, leader of the defunct Republic of Biafra, who had been in exile in Côte d’Ivoire since the end of the Civil War in 1970.

Shagari’s gesture, presented as part of his “national reconciliation” policy, was celebrated as a landmark in post-war healing. Ojukwu’s dramatic return symbolized the reintegration of the Southeast into the Nigerian mainstream. However, his later attempt to win a Senate seat under the ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN) ended unsuccessfully.

Under General Ibrahim Babangida (1985–1993), the pardon power became a subtle political tool to stabilise the regime. Several political detainees and military officers convicted of coup attempts were freed or had their sentences commuted. Babangida’s amnesty measures were largely elite-driven, intended to consolidate loyalty and sustain the transition programmes of his era.

In contrast, General Sani Abacha’s rule (1993–1998) was marked by harsh repression. His government rarely exercised clemency and ignored numerous appeals to release key political prisoners such as Chief M.K.O. Abiola and Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo, who were jailed over the alleged 1995 coup plot.

When Nigeria returned to democracy in 1999, President Olusegun Obasanjo utilized the clemency power to both redress past injustices and reward political allies.

He pardoned General Oladipo Diya and others convicted of coup plotting under Abacha’s regime, and posthumously restored the honour of Maj.-Gen. Shehu Musa Yar’Adua, who had died in Abacha’s prison.

While these acts were couched in the language of reconciliation, critics accused Obasanjo of politicizing the process by extending clemency primarily to allies who helped consolidate his administration.

In 2009, the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua redefined presidential clemency through the Niger Delta Amnesty Programme. Though not a conventional pardon, it offered ex-militants a blanket amnesty, rehabilitation, and vocational training in exchange for disarmament.

The programme significantly reduced attacks on oil infrastructure, restored production, and is widely regarded as one of Nigeria’s most effective peacebuilding initiatives.

In 2013, President Goodluck Jonathan provoked outrage when he pardoned his former boss and ex-Bayelsa governor, Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, who had been convicted and jailed for corruption under Obasanjo’s administration.

Jonathan defended the decision as an act of forgiveness, but civil society groups and international partners criticized it as a blow to the anti-corruption campaign. The president also extended clemency to several military and civilian convicts from previous regimes.

Former President Muhammadu Buhari, known for his austere posture, also found himself in controversy over pardons. In 2022, the Council of State approved clemency for former governors Joshua Dariye (Plateau) and Jolly Nyame (Taraba), both of whom were jailed for corruption.

The government justified the move on health and humanitarian grounds, but anti-corruption advocates condemned it as selective justice. Earlier, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Buhari ordered the release of about 2,600 inmates nationwide to decongest prisons.

So far, President Bola Tinubu has adopted a measured posture, focusing on political reconciliation without issuing broad amnesty lists.

Presidency sources hint that his administration may review politically motivated convictions from previous governments as part of his “Renewed Hope” agenda. Still, no sweeping pardon has yet been issued, suggesting Tinubu’s preference for stability and consensus over headline-grabbing acts of mercy.

Across administrations, presidential clemency has mirrored Nigeria’s political climate, serving alternately as balm for national wounds and a shield for political allies. From Shagari’s reconciliation with Ojukwu to Buhari’s release of convicted governors, every act of mercy has carried both humanitarian and political weight.

While the Constitution intended the power as an instrument of justice and forgiveness, its uneven application has repeatedly tested public trust in the fairness of the system.

Stakeholders continue to express concern over the balance between mercy, justice, and accountability. They argue that while the President is constitutionally empowered to grant clemency, such decisions often carry deep social and moral implications, particularly for victims of crimes committed by those pardoned.

For many victims and their families, a pardon can reopen old wounds and erode faith in justice. Convictions often represent the only closure they receive; when offenders, especially politically connected figures, are pardoned, it appears as though their suffering has been discounted.

Such acts, critics argue, reinforce the perception that justice in Nigeria is often skewed in favour of power and privilege. They also weaken deterrence, encourage impunity, and undermine public confidence in the rule of law.

At a time when Nigerians are enduring economic hardship, granting clemency to elites convicted of corruption sends a troubling message that accountability remains negotiable. It leaves citizens questioning whether mercy in Nigeria is guided by compassion or by politics.

Speaking on the issue, Principal Counsel of A.O. Aponmade & Co., Mr Akeem Aponmade, explained that Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria empowers the President to grant amnesty, pardon or clemency to convicted individuals, a provision that often raises the dilemma between mercy and justice.

According to him, presidential reprieves and sentence reductions are designed to serve justice through compassion, rehabilitation, or political reconciliation. “But for victims, especially in cases involving violence, corruption or abuse of power, such pardons can feel like a betrayal,” he said.

Aponmade noted that, from a positivist school of law perspective, the key questions are whether the law vests such powers in the President and whether he exercised them in accordance with the law. “Once these questions are answered in the affirmative, it becomes unnecessary to raise further legal arguments,” he added.

He, however, stressed the need for greater transparency in the process. “There is a Presidential Committee that makes recommendations to the President on these matters. The framers of the Constitution must have realized that only a few offences are victimless, and that in exercising these powers, some victims would naturally feel betrayed.

“While not questioning the President’s constitutional authority, I believe victims would feel more assured if the process of granting pardons were transparent, for instance, if the guidelines were publicly available and victims or their families were consulted before clemency decisions are made,” Aponmade said. (The Guardian)