Controversy Surrounds Presidential Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy’s Recent Pardon Recommendations

In January 2025, the Federal Government inaugurated a 12-member Presidential Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy, chaired by Prince Lateef Fagbemi, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice. The committee’s mandate is to facilitate the exercise of the President’s constitutional power to grant clemency, promote justice, rehabilitation, and uphold human rights across Nigeria. Committee members include notable figures such as Chief Akinlolu Olujinmi, Prof. Alkasum Abba, Prof. Nike Y. Sidikat Ijaiya, Justice Augustine B. Utsaha, and Dr. Onwusoro Maduka, along with institutional representatives from law enforcement, the Nigerian Correctional Service, and key religious bodies like the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs and the Christian Association of Nigeria.

However, the committee has recently come under scrutiny following the release and pardon of 175 convicts by President Bola Tinubu based on their recommendations. Among the beneficiaries were individuals convicted for serious offenses such as drug trafficking, murder, and large-scale fraud, prompting widespread public debate and criticism. This situation has ignited renewed discussions about the committee’s vetting process and its responsibilities.

Richard Akinnola II, a former member of the Lagos State Advisory Council on the Prerogative of Mercy, criticized the current committee for its perceived lack of thoroughness. Drawing from his experience during his tenure between 2006 and 2007, Akinnola emphasized that the role requires meticulous scrutiny of all applications, including physical prison visits and detailed inmate interviews before making recommendations. He argued that the responsibility for inappropriate pardons lies primarily with the advisory committee rather than the President, who traditionally signs off on the committee’s decisions based on trust in their judgment. According to Akinnola, several recent pardon recommendations were not just embarrassing but also reflected poorly on the committee’s procedural diligence, as some inmates were released only a few years into their sentences for severe crimes.

The committee defends its actions by highlighting criteria that guide their recommendations, including considerations for elderly inmates aged 60 and above, the terminally ill, juvenile offenders, long-term prisoners with good behavioral records of over ten years, and those who have acquired vocational skills during incarceration. Officials also cite demonstrated remorse by the convicts as a key factor. Nevertheless, many Nigerians remain skeptical, especially given that sensitive cases, such as the pardon of Maryam Sanda—a convicted murderer sentenced to death for killing her husband—have sparked emotional and political controversy.

ADVERTISEMENT

The case underscores the complexity of the prerogative of mercy as a constitutional power, which, while critical for justice and rehabilitation, demands judicious, transparent processes to maintain public trust. The committee’s work remains essential, yet the recent backlash calls for a rigorous review of its procedures to ensure a balance between mercy and accountability.

What this means for you: For those monitoring Nigerian governance and justice, this controversy illustrates challenges in maintaining transparency and fairness in presidential pardons. The committee’s role is pivotal but must be exercised with utmost care to protect public confidence in the rule of law.