On Friday, October 10, 2025, social media and news headlines were agog with one headline: Tinubu Pardons: President Tinubu Pardons Herbert Marcauley and 174 Others. Among those pardoned were drug traffickers, murder convicts, as well as those imprisoned or already released for financial crimes.
The news was met with mixed reactions, with supporters of the president and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) party hailing the move. They called it an act of mercy and a move necessary for national reconciliation.
Seye Oladejo, the Lagos State All Progressives Congress (APC) spokesperson, said: “This pardon restores faith in our justice system, deepens reconciliation, and reminds us that a nation’s greatness lies not only in how it punishes, but also in how it forgives.”
However, before he can exercise this power, he must set up the Presidential Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy (PACPM) and the Council of State.
But those from opposing parties and activists were not as ecstatic. They frowned particularly at the pardon granted to those convicted of financial crime, regardless of whether they had fully served their sentence. One classic example is the former lawmaker, Farouk Lawan, who was previously convicted of receiving a $500,000 bribe.
The opposition and activists saw it as an abuse of the presidential prerogative of mercy and a calculated move meant to help the president secure a second term as the country prepares for the 2027 presidential election. The positions of both sides have led many to question whether presidential pardons in Nigeria are truly acts of mercy, justice, or politics.
In this article, we’ll trace the history of presidential pardons in Nigeria to uncover whether they are for justice or politics. We’ll also look at what the law says about presidential pardons and the moral argument of both sides.
What Does the Law Say About Presidential Pardons in Nigeria?
The power to grant a presidential pardon is entrenched in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Under Section 175 titled the Prerogative of Mercy, the president has the following powers to:
- Grant a full or conditional pardon to any person convicted of an offense created by an Act of the National Assembly.
- Grant a reprieve, which is a temporary postponement of the execution of a sentence.
- Substitute a less severe form of punishment for the one imposed.
- Remit (reduce or cancel) the whole or any part of a punishment or penalty.
This section gives the president the power to temper justice with mercy for federal offenses. However, before he can exercise this power, he must set up the Presidential Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy (PACPM) and the Council of State.
The Role of the Presidential Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy and the Council of State
The PACPM reviews the cases of individuals who have petitioned the presidency for a pardon. They conduct an assessment based on several criteria, including the nature of the offense, the petitioner’s character, and the interest of justice and the public.
The Council of State is different. It comprises the Vice President, all former Presidents and Heads of States, all former Chief Justices of Nigeria, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, all State Governors, and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
Section 172(5) of the Constitution mandates the President to consult the Council of State before exercising his power of pardon. However, the President is not legally bound by their advice, but it carries political weight.
Are Pardon, Clemency, and Amnesty the Same?
We’ve been using the term pardon, but some use it interchangeably with clemency and amnesty. Are they the same? If not, what is the difference?
- Pardon: A pardon is an executive order given by the president or head of state. It completely forgives a crime or removes any remaining penalties. Also, it restores the receiver’s civil rights, but does not erase the conviction.
- Clemency: Clemency covers different forms of mercy, including pardons, commutations (reducing a sentence), and reprieves. So, a pardon is a form of clemency, but not all clemency is a pardon.
- Amnesty: Amnesty is a form of pardon granted to a group or class of people for a political offense. It is used mainly for national reconciliation after a period of unrest or conflict. It differs from pardon in that it can be granted before, during, or after legal proceedings, and once granted, the state cannot persecute the recipients for the specified offenses.
How Common Are Pardons Globally?
Pardons are provided for in different constitutions globally. In the United States, presidential pardons are provided for in Article II, and they cover a wide range of federal crimes. Also, there is an Office of the Pardon Attorney in the Department of Justice that is tasked with reviewing petitions and making recommendations.
However, like in Nigeria, the U.S. President is not mandated to follow the recommendations of the Department of Justice. The President can also bypass the process entirely. You can read more on the U.S. Presidential pardons here.
Each time there has been a presidential clemency in history, controversy has arisen. The public has always wondered if it is in the name of justice or politics.
Another country where the president has the right to grant pardons is South Africa. To be eligible for a pardon, the convicted person must apply to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.
To be granted a pardon in South Africa, the victim’s perspective must be considered, and the applicant must demonstrate sincere remorse. So, unlike Nigeria and the United States, pardons are not subject to the unilateral decision of the president. You can read more on the prerogative of mercy in South Africa here.
From Independence to Democracy — A Brief History of Pardons in Nigeria
Throughout Nigeria’s history since its independence, presidents and heads of state have used the prerogative of mercy to pardon criminals. Each time there has been a presidential clemency in history, controversy has arisen. The public has always wondered if it is in the name of justice or politics.
In this section, we will look at some of Nigeria’s past leaders who wielded this power and how the public reacted. We’ll begin from the fourth republic.
Olusegun Obasanjo
Here’s an interesting fact: President Olusegun Obasanjo was a recipient of a pardon. He was imprisoned by the Military Head of State, Sani Abacha, for an alleged coup. After Abacha’s death, General Abdulsalami Abubakar released and granted him a pardon in 1998.
This move made it possible for Obasanjo to run for the presidency in 1999, showing how much power a pardon has. In return, Obasanjo, after becoming president, used the prerogative of mercy for national reconciliation.
It was one of the most blatant displays of political forgiveness in Nigeria and a complete disregard for the rule of law.
One of his notable actions is pardoning former Biafran soldiers 32 years after the Nigerian Civil War. He did this to heal the lingering wounds and resentments of the Igbo people and to reintegrate the soldiers who were dismissed from the Nigerian army. So, in his case, pardon was used as a tool for unity and not for politics.
Goodluck Jonathan
After Obasanjo came the pardons granted by Goodluck Jonathan. In 2013, Jonathan made headlines when he granted clemency to his political mentor and former boss, Diepreye Alamieyeseigha. Alamieyeseigha, former governor of Bayelsa State, had been convicted of money laundering after a high-profile international investigation.
When news of the pardon broke, Jonathan was condemned locally and internationally. Many saw it as an act that took Nigeria backward in its fight against corruption. It was one of the most blatant displays of political forgiveness in Nigeria and a complete disregard for the rule of law.
Jonathan tried defending his action by arguing that Alamieyeseigha had shown remorse. But it did little to change the public opinion. The pardon was a defining moment of Jonathan’s administration, and it damaged his anti-corruption efforts. So, in this case, the presidential clemency was used for politics and not to serve the Nigerian justice system.
Muhammadu Buhari
President Muhammadu Buhari took over from Jonathan, and one of his campaign promises was to fight corruption and eradicate it from the corridors of power. So Nigerians watched closely how he would use the power of the prerogative of mercy. At first, he seemed to use it correctly.
He released several aging and infirm inmates on compassionate grounds, earning him the public’s praise. However, the praise turned to condemnation in 2022 when he pardoned two former governors, Joshua Dariye of Plateau State and Jolly Nyame of Taraba State, sparking a firestorm.
Many critics questioned why Lawan would be pardoned alongside the likes of Ken Saro-Wiwa. They saw it as a political cover to absolve a convicted politician.
The governors had been convicted and imprisoned for embezzling billions of naira. Although the Council of State recommended granting them pardon on health grounds, many still saw it as a contradiction for a government supposedly committed to fighting corruption.
Also, the action dampened the morale of anti-corruption agencies, and Nigerians saw it as proof that in the face of political connections, justice does not stand a chance. So, in this case, justice lost, while politics won.
Bola Ahmed Tinubu
When Buhari’s tenure ended, the trust of Nigerians in Presidential pardons was still low. Therefore, it did not come as a surprise when President Tinubu pardoned several convicts and ex-convicts, including those who stole public funds. But it also did not stop the public outrage.
Although the Tinubu pardons righted some wrongs by granting clemency to Major General Mamman Vatsa, executed for an alleged coup plot in 1986, and Ken Saro-Wiwa, the environmental activist executed along with eight other Ogoni leaders in 1995, it was overshadowed by the pardon to the likes of Farouk Lawan.
Many critics questioned why Lawan would be pardoned alongside the likes of Ken Saro-Wiwa. They saw it as a political cover to absolve a convicted politician. Many also pointed out the timeliness, as the country will soon begin campaigns for the 2027 elections. The criticisms showed once again that pardons can be used for political purposes to the detriment of justice.
The Moral Argument — Redemption vs. Reward
Let’s move from history to the moral argument of the presidential right to pardon: is it an opportunity for redemption or a reward for those who broke the law? A critical part of the justice system is that justice should be tempered with mercy, and humans are capable of change.
But in a country like Nigeria, politicians take advantage of this aspect of the justice system to serve their own purposes. Let’s look at how this plays out in what’s expected versus the reality.
What’s Expected
Ideally, pardons are for redemption, not a reward. This is why it is built on these three ideals:
- Redemption: Those who break the law are capable of change, and if they have paid their debt to society and are genuinely remorseful, they can be pardoned. This makes it the ultimate expression of faith in human capacity for rehabilitation.
- Compassion: The state can show compassion for convicted inmates if they are elderly, terminally ill, or serving a sentence harsher than their crime. By doing this, the sick or elderly can live out the rest of their days outside prison walls.
- National Healing: Pardons foster national healing by forgiving past offenses and allowing the country to move forward. This is vital in a country like Nigeria with years of ethnic conflict and unfair convictions, especially during the military regime.
The history of pardons in Nigeria suggests a form of reward for those who committed crimes, especially against the country and its citizens.
The Reality
Despite the noble reason for the prerogative of mercy, the reality is different: it has become a reward system for those with political affiliations and financial influence. The history of pardons in Nigeria suggests a form of reward for those who committed crimes, especially against the country and its citizens.
Whether it is Alamieyeseigha or Lawan, history shows that pardons in Nigeria are used as a reward for political loyalty. This is evident in the number of times presidents have pardoned those who embezzled public funds in a country where corruption runs deep.
It shows there’s no real commitment to fighting corruption and reinforces a culture of impunity. It also shows how those in power trample on the rule of law, and sends a message that the law is only for those without political connections and influence.
How Victims’ Families Feel When a Presidential Pardon Feels Like a Reward
In Nigeria, many families of those affected by the crime that the pardoned individual committed feel a pardon is a reward. For the families of those who were killed, for the communities whose resources were plundered, or for the individuals whose lives were ruined by the actions of the convicted, a pardon can feel like the ultimate betrayal.
To them, their sufferings do not mean much to the government, and any closure they got when the pardoned individual was convicted disappears. A classic example is the case of Maryam Sanda, one of the recipients of the Tinubu pardons.
This approach will better foster national healing and make presidential pardons in Nigeria feel less like a political tool for reward and more like redemption.
Sanda was convicted and sentenced to death for killing her husband, Bilyaminu Bello. When her name was announced as one of those pardoned by President Tinubu, Bello’s family described it as “the worst possible injustice any family could be made to go through for a loved one.”
So, what is the solution to this? How can the President grant clemency without the victim’s family seeing it as an injustice?
The answer is simple: consider the victim’s or their family’s perspective before granting a pardon. This is how South Africans were able to forgive those who violated human rights during apartheid. The country set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to handle the process.
If other countries like Nigeria can follow this model, victims and their families can hear from the convicted perpetrator and decide if they qualify for clemency. This approach will better foster national healing and make presidential pardons in Nigeria feel less like a political tool for reward and more like redemption.
The Political Underbelly of the Prerogative of Mercy
Moving away from the moral argument, let’s look at the political underbelly of the prerogative of mercy. Historical patterns show that the timing and beneficiaries of the prerogative of mercy have more to do with political motives than compassion.
The announcements always come at a politically sensitive period. The pardons can be used to gather support or appease a political faction to secure their support. If the president pardons a prominent politician from a particular region, they might secure the vote of the people from that region. Similarly, if a with significant financial influence is pardoned, they might contribute to the campaign funds.
Beyond pre-election maneuvering, pardons are sometimes used to distract the public during a time of crisis. Furthermore, pardons are announced during national holidays like Democracy Day or Independence Day as a gesture of national unity.
Lastly, a pardon can be used to maintain and benefit political allies. It can be used to show that loyalties will be rewarded. This often plays out when a president is about to leave office. In several countries, the president will issue a pardon to any of their allies who have been convicted of a crime.
However, there is a positive way pardons are used politically, and that is for historical revisionism. For example, posthumously pardoning Ken Saro-Wiwa or Mamman Vasta paints the Nigerian president in a good light, as he is seen as correcting the injustices of previous governments.
This generates goodwill for the president. But such actions are usually done to cover up less appealing pardons like the one for Farouk Lawan, who many see as the president’s ally.
How Do Citizens Receive Presidential Pardons?
Pardons like that of Lawan significantly impact how Nigerians view the prerogative of mercy. For many Nigerians, it is more of relief for the few and not justice for the many. The average Nigerian cannot afford legal representation, and according to the Nigerian Correctional Service, 70% of the Nigerian prison inmates are those who are awaiting trial.
With every President from Obasanjo to Jonathan to Tinubu granting clemency to politicians who stole from the country, it is safe to infer that Nigeria’s presidential pardons are more political than for justice or mercy.
Some of them have been imprisoned for years, with some having stayed incarcerated longer than they would have if they were convicted. In light of this, it is not surprising that when high-profile individuals who impoverished the country get pardoned, people receive the news negatively.
Pardoning those who stole from the country, regardless of whether they have served their time, also sends a message that only the poor and unconnected are held accountable for their actions. If you’re rich and have the right connections, the long arm of the law won’t get to you. Ultimately, people lose trust in the law and the government, and focus on building connections to ensure the rigged system favors them.
Conclusion: Has Nigeria’s Prerogative of Mercy Evolved Into Politics?
With all we’ve said, one question lingers: Has Nigeria’s prerogative of mercy evolved into politics?
The evidence suggests it has.
With every President from Obasanjo to Jonathan to Tinubu granting clemency to politicians who stole from the country, it is safe to infer that Nigeria’s presidential pardons are more political than for justice or mercy.
Admittedly, it has righted some wrongs and fostered national unity, but it has been used more to preserve political allies and promote political agendas. So, until the process becomes more transparent and public, reasonable, genuine remorse, and victims’ feelings are prioritized over political interest, the prerogative of mercy will continue to be viewed as more political than merciful.
What are your thoughts on presidential pardons in Nigeria? Do you think they serve justice or promote political interests? Share with us in the comments.
References and Further Reading:
- President Tinubu Pardons Herbert Macaulay, Vatsa, Lawan, and Grants Clemency to 82 Inmates
- An Appraisal of the Power of Pardon under Nigerian Law: Lessons from Other Jurisdictions
- U.S Department of Justice
- South African Department of Justice
- President Tinubu Grants Clemency to 175 Nigerians, Pardons National Heroes
- The Abuse of Presidential Power of Pardon and the Need for Restraints
- The Notorious Pardon
- NCoS: 70% of Inmates Across Prisons Awaiting Trial
- Political Donors Should Not Be Above the Law | Brennan Center for Justice
