A little over two weeks ago, President Bola Tinubu had, after consulting with the Council of State, granted clemency to some 175 persons convicted for various offences. The pardons immediately attracted huge controversy and ridicule. Shocked, Justice minister and Attorney-General of the Federation Lateef Fagbemi disclosed that the clemency committee chaired by him was not conclusive and its recommendations were subject to review. Days after, as part of his placatory effort, he announced a multi-agency review committee to take another look at the exercise. Some of the pardons, reports suggested, had been opposed by some of the agencies now included in the review exercise. It was also alleged that the list of pardons had been compromised somewhere along the line. These are, however, untenable excuses.
If the clemency list had been as thorough as the committee charged with drawing it up had said, they would repose confidence in their work, and would not wilt so embarrassingly in the face of opposition coming from the anti-crime, anti-drug, and anti-graft agencies. By admitting the need for a review, the clemency committee inadvertently indicates it was derelict in carrying out its assignment. In addition, by immediately reversing itself, especially much after consulting with the Council of State in line with the constitution, the administration shows how deeply allergic to criticisms and blowbacks it has become. The clemency hiccup was, however, not the first reversal in the past few years, and may in all probability not be the last. The problem then is not just that a committee, such as the Fagbemi-led clemency committee, had encountered a policy or bureaucratic mishap, or that the administration has become needlessly allergic to public opinion which is sometimes fickle and misplaced; it speaks both to the sometimes tardy operations in the administration’s clearing house and a lack of steely resolve when it really matters.
The argument that the anti-graft, anti-drug, and anti-crime agencies kicked against some of the pardons is both childish and indefensible. The aim of the prerogative of mercy is not for the president, or a governor as the case may be, to be finicky about the crimes committed by a law breaker but to demonstrate that no matter how serious the crime is, it can be pardoned if the right conditions are met. Furthermore, to suggest that a pardon for a serious crime necessarily vitiates anti-crime efforts is baffling and illogical. It does not. That a drug courier is pardoned does certainly not mean that the efforts of the Nigerian Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) are undermined. The controversy over the pardons is a reflection of how deeply judgemental and unforgiving the Nigerian soul has become. They prefer that only petty criminals should be pardoned. This is dispiriting. Murderers can indeed be pardoned, especially when families of their victims accent, among other things, to their pardon. So, too, drug offenders. Otherwise, the whole exercise would become tokenistic and even nugatory.
The constitutional provision on prerogative of mercy does sensibly not indicate what crimes should qualify for clemency. This does not, however, mean that the administration should not constitute a multi-agency panel to help ensure that the right or best thing is done. But as far as the law stands, the administration has been guided. Chapter 6, Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution provides thus:
(1) The President may –
(a) grant any person concerned with or convicted of any offence created by an Act of the National Assembly a pardon, either free or subject to lawful conditions;
(b) grant to any person a respite, either for an indefinite or for a specified period, of the execution of any punishment imposed on that person for such an offence;
(c) substitute a less severe form of punishment for any punishment imposed on that person for such an offence; or
Read Also: Police arrest IBBU student over alleged cybercrimes against Bago
(d) remit the whole or any part of any punishment imposed on that person for such an offence or of any penalty or forfeiture otherwise due to the State on account of such an offence.
(2) The powers of the President under subsection (1) of this section shall be exercised by him after consultation with the Council of State.
(3) The President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Council of State, may exercise his powers under subsection (1) of this section in relation to persons concerned with offences against the army, naval or air-force law or convicted or sentenced by a court-martial.
As many analysts have pointed out in recent weeks after the clemency story broke, pardons anywhere are by nature controversial. The October 9 pardons are no less controversial. The Council of State has given its accent to a list it believed the government had drawn up in line with constitutional provisions. In fact, by releasing the list to the public, many families have had their hopes raised. To rejig the list and remove some of the beneficiaries of the pardon is to play ducks and drakes with the feelings of many affected families. It is unfortunate. Should the list be significantly tampered with, it will not underscore the seriousness of the crimes committed by the offenders or the remorse they have shown, or even the appropriateness of their pardons. It will be an indication of how calloused the Nigerian soul has become. It is possible that the list was politicised, or that a few low-level officials allegedly smuggled a few names into it, though this is hard to fathom; but the vacillations do not indicate the resoluteness of the administration nor the supposed great image of the Nigerian.
