Presidential pardons and the prerogative of mercy are traditional leadership instruments recognised across the world and used by leaders to give deserving citizens a second chance at life after serving part of their sentence. The pardoning power is an important aspect of executive authority, providing a means to dispense the mercy of the government when the law’s rigidity may produce a morally unjust outcome. It exists to protect citizens from miscarriages of justice, errors in judgment, or punishment that exceeds fairness and reason.
However, over the years, this noble power has often been turned from a tool of mercy into a means of political reward. Across many nations, including Nigeria, pardons have been extended to political associates, powerful friends, and well-connected individuals. Because this authority is almost absolute and not strongly bound by institutional checks, it is easily open to abuse.
In Nigeria, several instances of presidential pardon have been controversial. While some have been viewed as fair and justifiable, others have drawn criticism as examples of executive high-handedness and poor judgment. A notable case occurred in March 2013, when former President Goodluck Jonathan pardoned Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, the former Bayelsa governor convicted of corruption. That decision was met with public outrage and became symbolic of the impunity that continues to weaken Nigeria’s governance structure.
In 2022, former President Muhammadu Buhari pardoned two ex-governors, Joshua Dariye and Jolly Nyame, both convicted of grand corruption. The decision triggered widespread condemnation from accountability groups like SERAP, which argued that the act violated the constitutional duty to abolish corruption and sent a damaging message to law enforcement agencies. These incidents highlight how mercy, when politically motivated, can erode public confidence and undermine justice.
More recently, in October 2025, during Nigeria’s 65th independence anniversary, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu granted pardons to 175 individuals, including convicted drug traffickers, smugglers, and even murderers. Among them were capital convicts like Maryam Sanda, who was convicted of killing her husband, and drug offenders whose prison terms had barely begun.
The public response was immediate and fierce. Political parties, civil society groups, and legal experts condemned the decision as a “national disgrace” and a threat to the integrity of justice. Beyond the outrage was a deeper concern, that the government was normalising impunity and weakening citizens’ faith in the justice system. When mercy is applied carelessly, it ceases to be mercy and becomes mockery.
The justification for the recent pardons was that the offenders had shown “remorse,” “good conduct,” or acquired vocational skills. Yet, many of them had served less than two years, including those convicted of crimes that directly violate Nigeria’s international commitments against drug trafficking and violent crime. Around the world, pardons are reserved for exceptional cases, such as terminal illness, old age, wrongful conviction, or genuine reform demonstrated over a significant period. Anything less undermines both the spirit and the purpose of clemency.
Countries like Canada and the United Kingdom offer strong models of integrity in the exercise of pardons. In Canada, the Parole Board of Canada independently assesses each case through a transparent and merit-based process, while in the UK, the Ministry of Justice subjects pardon requests to rigorous legal scrutiny — making manipulation nearly impossible and ensuring mercy never undermines justice.
Nigeria’s recent approach, however, appears arbitrary and politically driven, just like the American system where Presidents are also known to misuse the pardon window to benefit political associates or their families. The process lacks transparency and seems detached from both public sensitivity and moral evaluation. While Nigeria’s President may have acted on committee recommendations in the current situation, the Presidential Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy must be held accountable. Established to ensure fair and evidence-based recommendations, the committee’s lack of transparency and rigour has turned a sacred constitutional duty into a public relations disaster. However, the recent comments from the Attorney General of the Federation following the public backlash and controversy, that the list may still be reviewed offers a glimmer of hope for restoring public confidence. But such a review must have input from independent groups like the NBA, pending when a formal constitutional amendment can ensure a full autonomy of the process.
Each poorly considered pardon weakens the moral fabric of justice, demoralises law enforcement, and emboldens criminals. It undermines Nigeria’s anti-corruption and anti-drug campaigns and signals that crime carries no lasting consequence. When mercy loses its meaning, punishment loses its power.
To restore dignity to the power of pardon, Nigeria must adopt clear and transparent criteria grounded in fairness and accountability. Pardons should rest on verifiable grounds, such as wrongful conviction, serious illness, or visible rehabilitation, not political convenience. Every pardon granted should be made public, with reasons clearly stated. This level of openness reassures citizens that the system is not serving hidden interests and that justice is not for sale.
A victim-sensitive approach should also be mandatory, especially in cases involving violence or corruption. Those considered for pardon should have served a substantial portion of their sentence and proven genuine reform. Mercy should heal wounds, not reopen them. It should restore faith in the justice system, not diminish it.
While the power of pardon is entrenched in Chapter Six, Part One, Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution, Presidents and governors must remember that with this sacred authority to forgive, they also bear the duty to uphold justice with honour, fairness, and compassion. Mercy must never become merchandise. When it loses its moral weight, both justice and leadership lose meaning.
Normalising impunity corrodes national character and must be resisted by all who believe in justice. Nigerians must therefore demand transparency, fairness, and accountability in the use of executive mercy. Because when justice is mocked, the nation’s soul is shaken, and no pardon, however grand, can cleanse that moral wound.
