President Bola Tinubu, Farouk Lawan

In the wake of President Bola Tinubu’s sweeping act of clemency granting pardon to 175 individuals including controversial figures, legal and civil society experts have weighed in on the constitutional, moral, and political implications of the move.

While the Presidency insists that the decision aligns with the constitutional prerogative of mercy under Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), many Nigerians have expressed discomfort over what they see as an abuse of discretionary powers. The list, which also includes convicted drug offenders, financial criminals, and individuals jailed for homicide and illegal mining, has stirred questions about justice, closure, and accountability.

Among those who criticised the gesture was the 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 the justice system and is tantamount to an abuse of presidential privilege.

presidential pardons by crime category Credit: X

“The President Has Done Nothing Wrong” — Durotimi Owoeye

Durotimi Owoeye

Meanwhile, Legal expert Durotimi Owoeye Esq., speaking on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM Ilese-Ijebu, on Monday, defended the President’s constitutional authority, stressing that Tinubu acted within the scope of the law.

“The powers of the President under Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, are unlimited,” he said, explaining that the prerogative of mercy allows the President to grant full or conditional pardons, commute sentences, or remit penalties after consulting the Council of State.

According to Owoeye, “Constitutionally, the President has not done anything wrong, though the exercise of that power under Section 175 is still limited to him consulting the Council of State.”

However, he admitted that unchecked authority can be problematic, calling for immediate legislative action. “There’s a need for the National Assembly to introduce a Subsection 3 to Section 175 of the Constitution, to take care of the abuse of the powers of the President under the prerogative of mercy,” Owoeye proposed.

He maintained that while Tinubu’s actions were legally sound, they raised deeper moral questions. “The law gives him the right, but morality and public perception are a different matter entirely,” he noted.

The Moral Question: “Absolute Power Corrupts” — Ayodeji Ologun

 Comrade Ayodeji Ologun

Echoing Owoeye’s legal stance but questioning the moral implications, Comrade Ayodeji Ologun, Executive Director of the Centre for Responsive Governance, argued that the President’s decision could reopen old wounds for victims and their families.

“There’s a thin line between morality and the law,” Ologun said. “Absolute power corrupts and I emphasize ‘absolute.’ The powers given to the President under the prerogative of mercy are indeed unlimited, but whether the exercise of those powers is morally right or in the public interest is another thing entirely.”

Ologun warned that the clemency could reawaken past traumas, especially for victims of violent crimes whose offenders may now walk free. “The closure those families had gotten over the years, you have simply re-enacted it. If care isn’t taken, it could lead to chaos or even murder,” he cautioned.

He called for an urgent constitutional review to address what he described as “the unchecked nature of executive pardon.” According to him, “There’s an urgent need to revisit that section of the Constitution that gives absolute power to the President to grant freedom or amnesty to people who are held.”

Controversial Names and the Question of Public Trust

One of the most talked-about inclusions on the pardon list was that of Faruk Lawan, a former lawmaker once hailed as a symbol of accountability and anti-corruption. Lawan, who led the House of Representatives committee investigating fuel subsidy fraud, was later convicted for bribery in 2021.

Another was Maryam Sander who was alleged to have killed her husband, Bilyamin Bello, son of former PDP National Chairman, Mohammed Bello.

“Faruk Lawan, at a point in this country, was a symbol of accountability, courage, and boldness until he became a victim of what he was fighting for,” Ologun lamented. “At a point in our history, standards of courage and accountability have taken a turn for the worse.”

Legal analyst Owoeye, however, offered a nuanced view, noting that not all beneficiaries of the pardon were undeserving. He referenced the case of Sunday Matthew, who reportedly killed a herdsman in self-defense. “If such a person is one of those 175 people, then there are some merits in the pardon granted,” he said, explaining that the Constitution also empowers the President to grant partial pardons in deserving cases.

Rehabilitation or Reintegration? The Boko Haram Controversy

Ologun also took aim at the Federal Government’s de-radicalization and reintegration programme for former Boko Haram members, tying it to the broader debate about clemency and justice.

“I am a non-believer in the so-called radicalization process,” he stated. “I’m an activist, and I know that there’s a place for closure for everybody who has been hurt or cheated in one way or the other. But I’ve condemned, and I’ll continue to condemn, the radicalization approach of the Federal Government.”

While he acknowledged the importance of second chances, Ologun stressed that forgiveness without justice undermines national healing. “There must be a balance between mercy and accountability,” he said.

“The President Must Lead by Example”

In his closing remarks, Durotimi Owoeye urged President Tinubu to exercise restraint in wielding his constitutional powers, warning that his actions could set a precedent for state governors who also enjoy similar privileges.

“The President himself must avoid setting a very bad example to state governors who also have the prerogative of mercy at their state levels,” he advised. “He should lead by example. The message of this presidential pardon should not be taken for granted.”

A Call for Reform

As Nigeria debates the fine line between justice and mercy, both experts agree that the President’s constitutional powers require urgent reform to prevent misuse. While Tinubu’s decision may have legal backing, its timing, composition, and moral undertones have stirred deeper questions about governance, accountability, and the sanctity of justice.

In a country still struggling to rebuild trust in its institutions, the exercise of presidential mercy though lawful remains a reminder that the letter of the law must always serve the spirit of justice.