Maryam Sanda and Tinubu’s crisis of clemency, By Farooq Kperogi - Newstrends
Connect with us

Opinion

Maryam Sanda and Tinubu’s crisis of clemency, By Farooq Kperogi

Published

on

Maryam Sanda

Maryam Sanda and Tinubu’s crisis of clemency, By Farooq Kperogi

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, like his predecessors, has the constitutional right to grant clemency. He draws this right from Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution, which grants him the power to pardon convicts and commute sentences. But constitutional rights are not moral shields, and mercy must ennoble justice, not mock it.

Prerogative of mercy, designed to temper justice with compassion, has, in the estimation of several people, been cheapened by the recent pardons Tinubu approved for murderers, drug traffickers and other hardened criminals.

The list of 175 beneficiaries of Tinubu’s pardon includes people convicted of violent crimes and narcotics offenses. Among them is Maryam Sanda, sentenced to death in 2020 for killing her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, in a fit of murderous fury.

The case captured the imagination of the nation because it symbolized both the collapse of domestic civility and the delicate hope that justice could still work in Nigeria. Now, Tinubu’s pardon threatens to turn that hope to scorn and righteous indignation.

Following fierce, furious, sustained public backlash, the federal government hurriedly clarified on Thursday that no inmate has yet been released under the current Presidential Prerogative of Mercy exercise. Attorney-General Lateef Fagbemi said the process “remains at the final administrative stage” and that it is still undergoing verification and review.

That acknowledgement of bureaucratic pause is what has prompted this reflection. If the government is really and truly reviewing the pardons, it still has time to salvage its moral standing. Once the releases occur, it will be too late to reverse the damage.

The most exasperating aspect of the exercise is how it was packaged. When news broke that Maryam Sanda was among those granted clemency, the outrage was instantaneous. To soften the blow, a press conference was convened, and Bilyaminu Bello’s biological father by the name of Ahmed Bello Isa, who had been entirely absent from his son’s life, was suddenly thrust before cameras to claim credit for Sanda’s release.

READ ALSO:

Reading from what appeared to be a prepared statement, he said he had sought the pardon because he wanted his grandchildren to have the benefit of growing up with their mother.

Meanwhile the family that had adopted, nurtured, educated and buried Bilyaminu Bello watched in shock and disempowering rage. They said the pardon reopened old wounds and compounded their grief with humiliation.

Forgiveness is virtuous only when it is voluntarily given. It can never be coerced or legislated.  We all know that the spectacle of the biological father’s news conference was designed to sanitize the gross injustice of Maryam Sanda’s unmerited pardon and to launder the privilege of her parents through a choreographed display of mawkish sentimentality.

But it succeeded only in deepening public disgust. No one disputes that mercy has a place in governance. A humane system recognizes remorse and rehabilitation. But presidential pardon must be the culmination of justice, not its subversion. When the powerful can engineer clemency for their own, while the poor rot in overcrowded prisons for petty theft, mercy becomes a weapon of inequality.

If the rationale for the pardons is “good conduct,”  where is the proof of her repentance, the evidence of her rehabilitation, the testimony of those hurt by her actions?

Were the adoptive parents of Bilyaminu Bello even consulted? It’s obvious they were not. The public statement signed by Dr. Bello Haliru Mohammed on behalf of the family calling the pardon “the worst possible injustice any family could be made to go through” is all the proof you need.

“To have Maryam Sanda walk the face of the earth again, free from any blemish for her heinous crime as if she had merely squashed an ant, is the worst possible injustice any family could be made to go through for a loved one,” the statement said.

The presidency’s statement that many pardoned inmates had learned trades or earned degrees in custody is neither here nor there. Drug barons can run classroom workshops, and murderers can earn degrees, but that does not erase their crimes. It doesn’t give justice to the victims of their transgressions.

READ ALSO:

The integrity of justice does not lie in whether convicts can read the Bible, recite the Qur’an or weld steel. It lies in whether the law retains meaning after the verdict.

This is not, of course, the first time Nigerian presidents have abused the power of mercy. Past leaders have freed convicted looters, coup plotters, and cronies under the guise of national reconciliation.

What is new, at least based on my recollection of past presidential pardons, is the raw, remorseless, I-dare-you brazenness of Tinubu’s. The inclusion of notorious drug traffickers and violent offenders, even as ordinary Nigerians struggle daily with the terror of crime and narcotics abuse, communicates the message that crime pays if you have the right connection in high places.

That reality has the capacity to sap the last ounce of moral energy from law enforcement officers who risk their lives to arrest traffickers and murderers. It also tells victims that their pain can be erased by elite connections.

It is particularly obscene that this mass pardon occurred just months after Tinubu’s government rolled out a “war on drugs” campaign and urged young Nigerians to resist the lure of narcotics. How can a government that preaches zero tolerance for drug trafficking now pardon convicted traffickers in the same breath?

Yes, as I pointed out earlier, the President’s prerogative of mercy is legal. But legality is not morality. The framers of the Constitution imagined that the power to pardon would correct miscarriages of justice. It was not intended to become a recycling plant for impunity.

Clemency must not reward crime. A pardon should emerge from a rigorous, transparent process involving victims’ families, prosecutors, correctional officials and mental-health professionals, not from political patronage or backroom lobbying. And it should be rare, not routine.

If Tinubu insists on exercising this right, let him do so for prisoners of conscience, wrongly convicted individuals, and those who have served decades for non-violent offenses. It insults justice if it’s mostly for the wealthy and the well-connected who can summon ministers to plead their cause.

By including Maryam Sanda and other violent offenders, the Tinubu administration has set a perilous precedent. It invites every future convict with political or financial clout to expect similar treatment. It signals to judges that their sentences can be casually undone, and to prosecutors that their diligence is futile.

Most dangerously, it erodes public faith in the rule of law. Once people believe justice is negotiable, they seek it elsewhere, often in violence or vigilantism. Nigeria’s fragile social fabric cannot afford that descent.

The Attorney-General’s statement that the list is still “under review” offers the president a chance to rethink. He can still remove names that discredit the exercise and reinforce public confidence by publishing transparent criteria for eligibility.

He can also seize this moment to reform the clemency process itself. The Presidential Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy must include civil-society representatives, victim-advocacy groups and credible clergy.

If this government truly values mercy, let it show compassion to the countless awaiting-trial inmates languishing without verdicts, some jailed longer than the sentences for their alleged crimes. Mercy belongs not in freeing the privileged guilty but in rescuing the forgotten innocent.

Every pardon sends a message. The absolution of Maryam Sanda tells Nigerians that if you are the scion of a powerful and wealthy family you can murder and get away with it.

True mercy cannot be scripted, televised or bartered for lineage. Tinubu’s mass clemency, if implemented as announced, will deepen Nigeria’s moral anemia.

The president should pause the process, strike out the names that insult justice, and remember that mercy divorced from morality is corruption. For once, let power bow before principle.

Maryam Sanda and Tinubu’s crisis of clemency, By Farooq Kperogi

Farooq Kperogi is a renowned columnist and United States-based Professor of Journalism.

Loading

Opinion

Ortom and His 23 Cars’ ‘Bonus’, by Dele Sobowale

Published

on

Dele Sobowale
Dele Sobowale

Ortom and His 23 Cars’ ‘Bonus’, by Dele Sobowale

“As I talk to you, after I left office, vehicles that were given to me legitimately by government, this government went and seized them in a manner that was not befitting.” – Former Governor Samuel Ortom of Benue State

Last week, former Governor Donald Duke of Cross River declared that military rule was, in many respects, better than civil rule since 1999.

I cannot agree more.

I had the privilege of visiting about seven former military governors before 1999.

No military governor had up to 23 cars assigned to the Governor’s Office or residence.

By contrast, since 1999, a civilian governor with only 23 cars in the office alone would be regarded as extremely prudent.

Many have 50 or more.

Ortom’s 23 cars have triggered a dispute. Governors, on their way out of office, routinely take what they deem as their entitlements and thus render their states poorer than they met them.

Most commentaries on Ortom’s 23 cars have been superficial.

The impression they have created is that only 23 cars were taken away.

Nothing can be further from the truth.

Ortom was not the only beneficiary of that largesse.

It is quite possible that over 100 cars were taken away as parting gifts – with Ortom’s approval – as I will explain shortly.

Ortom revealed the hidden truth by saying, with a straight face, that the vehicles were allocated to him and other members of his administration through the State Executive Council, SEC, after they had been used for more than four years.

It was the worst defence for an assault on public funds ever uttered by a former official.

It provided a window into the minds of top government officials everywhere – irrespective of political party affiliation.

Every State Executive Council, SEC, comprises the governor, the deputy governor, the Secretary to the State Government and commissioners.

All the others are selected or appointed by the governor and, with the exception of the deputy governor, can be removed from office.

In other words, the SEC is created by the governor and can take no independent decision of its own.

READ ALSO:

It is not an autonomous body.

Stripped of the subterfuge surrounding it, the decision to allocate 23 cars to Ortom amounted to the governor deciding to go home with the cars and getting his echoes in the SEC to endorse it.

Ortom, inadvertently, disclosed that more cars than 23 were driven home by his government officials when he claimed that the SEC allocated the vehicles in dispute to him “and other members of his administration”.

Since “the other members of his administration” start with the SEC, it stands to reason that the deputy governor, the Secretary to the State Government, all the commissioners, the Chief of Staff, several Special Advisers, heads of state agencies, etc., were also allowed to go home with cars declared over four years old – even if by one day.

Nobody has documented the number of cars Ortom and “the other members of his administration” took away. Over 100 vehicles might be involved.

That leads to the next question because it strikes at the heart of why poverty is increasing in Nigeria.

IS A CAR FOUR YEARS OLD READY FOR THE JUNKYARD?

Most Nigerians known to me, including those driving corporate official cars, are driving vehicles more than five years old.

Mine is 12 years old and can still break the speed limit anywhere in the world.

I also own a LAGRIDE taxi, now four years old.

The Chinese-made car was offered four years ago at N4.8 million, with a down payment of N1.82 million and the balance to be paid in instalments. Today, the car costs N25 million new, and offers have been made to buy my used one for N11–N13 million.

Obviously, when any government gives away, at far less than market value, to departing officials, the public loses.

Ortom’s 23 cars, as well as the others allocated to members of his administration, would have fetched almost five times what the officials paid for them.

To put the matter in perspective, Benue State would have to pay nothing less than N6 trillion just to replace the vehicles.

Left untouched is the question: What else was taken away – furniture, generators, air-conditioners, borehole pumps?

Outgoing officials are never satisfied with taking cars with them.

“Laws grind the poor, and rich [as well as powerful] men rule the law.” – Oliver Goldsmith, 1728–1774

The other half of his self-defence concerns the legality of the allocations.

That the law is an ass has been well established; so is the fact that what we often call law might be injustice codified.

Strictly speaking, everything Abacha did was supported by laws passed as decrees. Justice was never considered.

Civilian governments also make laws which are inherently unjust to the masses.

READ ALSO:

The regulation allowing some public servants appointed by the governor to take away very useful public properties cannot be regarded as equitable, given the fact that those who served for 30 or 35 years cannot take away a single pin without being prosecuted.

What exactly does an outgoing governor want to do with 23 cars?

MEANWHILE, GOVERNOR ALIA SETS BACK DEMOCRACY IN BENUE

Governor Hyacinth Alia, a Catholic cleric, honourably fought for justice by having the 23 cars taken away by Ortom retrieved.

It is not clear whether other cars allocated by Ortom’s SEC members were also seized.

If not, the measure would appear personal and discriminatory.

It would appear to be partial justice and tainted with vendetta.

Frequently, individuals transiently invested with near-absolute power, like Nigerian governors, cross the thin line between the divine and the ridiculous within a short time.

When Alia, for the second time, blocked Peter Obi from moving freely about in Benue State, he betrayed democracy and the Constitution of Nigeria he swore to uphold.

He failed the democracy test. He even failed the test of advanced education.

His tenure is limited by the Constitution. Obviously, he will become an ex-governor one day – without armed escorts to protect him and clear the way.

He has established a precedent which will make it legitimate for any governor in Nigeria to block his right of passage.

Two examples in Nigerian history should serve as a warning to Alia.

Military Head of State Obasanjo passed the decree under which General Gowon would have been executed in 1976 – if Britain had not granted the deposed leader political asylum.

The same decree, with slight amendment, was used by Abacha to nail his former boss.

He was saved by divine intervention.

Malam El-Rufai, as governor of Kaduna State, had critics living in other states arrested, brought to Kaduna State and detained without bail for days – before media protests got them released on bail.

Today, El-Rufai is in detention by the DSS and ICPC, without bail for almost six months.

The same media, held in contempt by El-Rufai, has now undertaken the campaign to get him released.

As one of our founding fathers, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, reminded us before passing to eternal life: “No condition is permanent.”

Governor Alia should climb down from his high horse and apologise to Obi and Nigerians.

 

Ortom and His 23 Cars’ ‘Bonus’, by Dele Sobowale

Loading

Continue Reading

Opinion

2027: Competence, Not Zoning, Should Decide Nigeria’s Next President — Imasuagbon

Published

on

Nigerians should look beyond ethnicity, region and the longstanding debate over rotational presidency when choosing the country’s next leader, according to a chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Kenneth Imasuagbon.

The former Edo State governorship aspirant said the priority ahead of the 2027 election should be finding a president with the ability to confront Nigeria’s economic, security and infrastructure challenges.

Speaking to journalists in Benin, Imasuagbon argued that presidential rotation is not a requirement of the Nigerian Constitution and should therefore not outweigh the question of competence.

He said voters should be more concerned about replacing poor schools with better ones, improving healthcare and addressing hardship than debating where the next president comes from.

Imasuagbon specifically appealed to voters in the South to support former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who is contesting the 2027 presidency on the ADC platform.

According to him, Atiku has demonstrated the experience and determination needed to improve the country, describing the former vice president as someone capable of promoting national unity and fairness.

He also accused the Bola Tinubu administration of worsening economic pressure through policies including the removal of fuel subsidy, while expressing concern about the condition of roads, electricity and other infrastructure.

Imasuagbon argued that the next administration must focus on practical improvements in areas such as power, transportation, employment, security and public services.

The ADC chieftain also dismissed the idea that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) would automatically benefit from its incumbency advantage in 2027.

He maintained that the electorate ultimately determines the outcome of an election, arguing that voters could change the political direction of the country if they were determined to do so.

Imasuagbon further criticised what he described as regional and ethnic considerations in the distribution of political appointments and opportunities, insisting that the next president should give Nigerians across different parts of the country a sense of belonging.

His comments come as political parties and their candidates intensify preparations for the 2027 presidential election.

Loading

Continue Reading

Opinion

Lesson from Dotun Oladipo’s Brave Daughters, by Bamidele Johnson

Published

on

Lesson from Dotun Oladipo’s Brave Daughters, by Bamidele Johnson

 

I hope to grow old. I want to see my kids become real adults, find their own feet, make mistakes, recover from them, and perhaps one day complain that their own children are giving them grey hairs. I want that plainly stated before anything else, as everything that follows might read as a man agreeing to an early exit rather than a man simply being honest about the odds.

I want the decades. I want to become the grandfather who repeats the same stories until nobody bothers correcting him anymore. But wanting a thing and being granted are different things. The last year has made that difference harder to ignore than I would like. I have lost many friends recently to keep thinking that optimism is my natural resting state. Some of these men had better blood pressure than mine, better habits, better everything that is supposed to count. It did not save them.

There is no formula I know that reliably separates the men who make it to 70 from those who do not. Anyone who says he knows one is selling something. So, I do not assume that old age is an already booked destination. Even if I once did, which I doubt, the last three years have cured me of such an illusion. As such, I treat it as a hope rather than an expectation, and I have found that a more honest way to live.

It is exactly why I want something placed on record now, while I am still able to place things on record, rather than leave it for people to guess what my wishes were in the fog of a funeral week. If I do not make old bones, my children are not to be asked to read tributes at my funeral. Not one line, however short, however lovingly written.

This, for me, was settled today rather than re-opened. At Dotun Oladipo’s funeral service, his three daughters took turns to read their tributes to their dad, and I found myself watching them with awe. There was a kind of strength in them that I do not possess. It is the strength needed to stand in front of a hall brimming with grieving adults and speak about a man they have just lost. Forever. Strength, however, is not the same as ease. I could see plainly what that strength was costing them as they read. Their voices caught. Their composure held and then did not hold and then held again through sheer will.

In front of them, in the pews, men and women considerably older than them came undone in ways the girls themselves were somehow managing to resist. I went mightily close. Some of the sobbing was quiet, the type people try to fold into a handkerchief. Some of it was not quiet at all, the kind that announces itself whether or not you want it.

Those young women honoured their father with a grace that is beyond me. What they did was astonishing. So, what I am attempting is an observation of a custom I have now watched wound people. This was not the first time I had watched this particular ritual extract more than it should from people already running on fumes. I saw an earlier and harder version of it at a friend’s wake back in 2015.

The first son was called forward to read his father’s tribute, and he could not do it. He tried, but the words would not come, and he stood there in front of a crowd of mourners, with his grief simply refusing to organise itself into sentences. The officiating minister, rather than releasing him from the task, urged him to continue. I sat fizzing with sorrow and ire. He could not go on and, eventually, the minister accepted, but not before insisting a while longer than it should have reasonably taken. His younger brother was called up next, presumably on the theory that if one grieving son could not manage it, maybe another one could. He flunked it in the same way. Grief does not distribute itself more conveniently among siblings just because a programme has been printed and needs to be followed.

I have turned that memory over many times since, trying to work out why this part of the rites is treated as mandatory in the first place. I have not found a satisfying answer. Maybe it comes from a belief that a child’s words carry more weight than anyone else’s, which may even be true, but weight is exactly the problem when those carrying it are struggling to hold themselves together with nothing but adrenaline and the fear of dissolving in public.

Maybe it is simply inertia, the reason we still do a hundred things at funerals that nobody can explain the original purpose of. Either way, I have stopped looking for the justification. I no longer think one exists that is good enough to weigh against what I watched happen to that boy in 2015.

So, let this stand as my instruction rather than my preference, the kind of thing I would rather state plainly now than leave for my children to infer later from how uncertain I sound when the subject comes up in passing. If I do not get the old age I am hoping for, my children will not be asked to read a single word over my body. Someone else can speak for me. A friend, a stranger with a steadier voice and a smaller stake in the loss, anyone whose grief will not be quite so total that standing upright becomes almost impossible.

My children, of course, will sit in front and fall apart if that is what the day requires of them, but without the microphone. That, at least, is one small mercy I intend to arrange for them while I am still here to arrange it.

Dotun deserved every bit of the send-off his daughters gave him today, and I suspect he would have been the first to tell them to sit down and let someone else carry the weight for a while. He did not get a say in that, as none of us ever do once we are the ones being spoken of rather than the ones speaking. Rest well, Dotun. You raised three young women whose strength I will not soon forget. That alone says everything worth saying about the man you were.

 

Loading

Continue Reading

Trending