Tinubu’s Pardon of 175 Convicts: Mercy, Justice & Public Outrage in Nigeria

Last week, President Bola Tinubu, invoking his constitutional prerogative of mercy, granted clemency to 175 Nigerians convicted on a spectrum of serious offences including drug trafficking, murder, armed robbery and illegal mining etc., who were serving sentences — some even the death penalty.

The decision has sparked widespread public indignation. Critics argue that such expansive use of the pardon power undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system and gives the impression that serious crimes can be forgiven — raising concerns about equal treatment before the law.

Legal scholars note that while the Constitution (specifically Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution) empowers the president to issue pardons, the process also demands transparency and alignment with the goals of justice, rehabilitation and deterrence.

Opponents of the recent move emphasise that granting clemency to individuals convicted of grave offences—such as homicide, large-scale narcotics or corruption—at a time when the nation is battling insecurity, erosion of public trust in institutions and a surge in criminal activity, sends conflicting messages. The Guardian Nigeria+1

Supporters of the pardon, however, contend that the power of mercy is a legitimate instrument for reconciliation, rehabilitation and healing. They argue that some beneficiaries demonstrated genuine remorse, met criteria of good conduct, were of advanced age, or had undertaken vocational training or academic studies while incarcerated.

Nonetheless, many civil society organisations demand clarity on the criteria used to select the beneficiaries, warning that without clear guidelines and accountability, the pardon power risks being wielded as a political tool rather than a genuine instrument of social justice.

In sum, while the constitutional mechanism for pardon exists, the timing, scale and opacity of this specific exercise have ignited concerns that the balance between mercy and justice may have been tipped too far — ultimately raising questions about the credibility of the rule of law in Nigeria.