The recent presidential pardon granted by President Bola Tinubu to 175 convicted individuals raises pressing questions about transparency, intent, and the overall message it sends to everyday citizens.
Development Diaries reports that President Tinubu recently assented to the Presidential Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy’s recommendation granting clemency to 175 convicts, including notable figures such as the late Major General Mamman Vatsa, Professor Magaji Garba, Ken Saro-Wiwa, and the other members of the Ogoni Eight.
The list also included the late nationalist, Herbert Macaulay, and Maryam Sanda, who was sentenced to death for killing her husband.
But many Nigerians have questioned this development, and rightly so. The lack of transparency surrounding it raises pressing concerns, such as what informed the decision and whose interests it serves.
A presidential pardon, also known as the prerogative of mercy, is constitutionally designed to correct injustices, show compassion, or reintegrate individuals who have genuinely reformed after serving part of their sentence.
Under Chapter 6, Part 1, Section 175 of the 1999 constitution, the president is constitutionally empowered to exercise the Prerogative of Mercy.
Ideally, it should serve the public interest by balancing justice with forgiveness, but in this case of President Tinubu’s pardon for 175 convicts, including those convicted of murder, drug trafficking, and corruption, the rationale appears unclear.
Some of the pardons, such as those granted to the late General Vatsa and the Ogoni Nine, may be seen as understandable, but extending clemency to individuals convicted of drug-related offences raises serious concerns.
It calls into question the value of the years of work and commitment the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) invested in arresting and prosecuting these offenders.
More importantly, it sends a troubling signal to other drug traffickers that their actions might eventually be overlooked, which undermines the nation’s fight against drug-related crimes.
While the presidency claims the decision was based on ‘remorse and good conduct’, it fails to explain how such standards were measured or why certain individuals, like Sanda and convicted drug traffickers, deserved clemency.
Without a transparent, case-by-case explanation, the public is left to assume that the exercise was politically influenced or selectively applied, undermining the very spirit of justice it was meant to uphold.
Transparency is at the heart of the matter. A presidential pardon, though constitutionally backed, must be clearly communicated and justified in the public domain.
If the rationale behind the pardon was rehabilitation and reform, then the presidency owes the public a thorough explanation of the criteria used to assess that reformation.
Such an important act of clemency should have been accompanied by a clear, detailed explanation of why each pardon was granted, what the criteria were, how the committee reached its conclusions, and what the broader national interest is in forgiving these crimes.
For the prerogative of mercy to retain its integrity, citizens must demand that the Presidential Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy institute a transparent framework, publishing clear guidelines, assessment reports, and the basis for each pardon.
