The Federal Government has announced that no inmates have been released under the presidential pardon recently granted by President Bola Tinubu, stating that the process is still undergoing final administrative review.
This clarification was made by the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), following growing public curiosity and concern surrounding the status of the pardons.
According to reports, President Tinubu had approved clemency for 175 individuals after the recommendation of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy and the subsequent endorsement by the National Council of State.
Prominent among the names reportedly on the list are Ken Saro-Wiwa and Major General Mamman Vatsa, both executed under General Sani Abacha’s regime, as well as Maryam Sanda, convicted for the murder of her husband.
The government maintains that the delay is procedural. In a public statement, the AGF explained that the Ministry of Justice is carefully vetting the names to ensure compliance with legal and administrative protocols.
“The commitment of the Federal Government to the principles of justice, fairness, and accountability remains unwavering,” Fagbemi said, adding that “no individual has been released as the process is still undergoing final administrative review.”
However, while the official stance frames the delay as a matter of due process, the timing and tone of the clarification suggest that public reaction may have influenced the government’s pace.
Since news of the pardons broke, public discourse has been marked by a wave of criticism and debate. Many Nigerians expressed outrage on social media, questioning the moral and legal implications of pardoning individuals involved in high-profile or emotionally charged cases.
The inclusion of figures such as Maryam Sanda, in particular, sparked strong objections, with many citing concerns about justice for victims and the erosion of public trust in the judicial system.
In politically sensitive contexts such as this, governments often employ procedural language to manage public expectations or to recalibrate controversial decisions. The phrase “final administrative review” offers flexibility, it allows time for further vetting and possibly the quiet removal of controversial names from the final implementation list without formally reversing the president’s initial approval.
Legal experts note that while the prerogative of mercy is a constitutional right of the president, its implementation requires careful navigation of public sentiment, especially in a democracy where transparency and accountability are demanded by an increasingly vocal citizenry.
