President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has granted a presidential pardon to Maryam Sanda, the woman sentenced to death in 2020 for the murder of her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, a move that has ignited heated debates across Nigeria.
The news of her release has dominated national discussions, with many Nigerians expressing outrage and confusion over the government’s decision to pardon someone convicted of such a serious crime.
Critics on social media have accused the administration of favouritism and undermining the justice system, noting that several other inmates on death row for similar offences have not been considered for clemency.
However, others have defended the decision, insisting that the president acted out of compassion and that Sanda’s case was thoroughly reviewed before the pardon was granted.
Presidency explains reason for her release
In a statement released by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the presidency clarified that Sanda’s release was part of a broader pardon initiative that included 175 inmates nationwide.
Onanuga explained that the recommendation came from the Presidential Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy, chaired by Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN).
According to the presidency, Sanda was considered for clemency due to her exemplary conduct in prison, demonstrated remorse, and successful rehabilitation during her years of incarceration.
“Her family had written to the committee appealing for leniency, and after careful consideration of her behaviour and transformation while serving her sentence, she was deemed fit for pardon,” the statement read.
Public and legal reactions to Tinubu’s decision
Legal experts, human rights advocates, and social commentators have continued to share mixed opinions regarding the presidential action.
Prominent legal analyst Barr. Mike Ozekhome (SAN) described the move as “a delicate balance between justice and compassion,” noting that presidential pardons, while constitutional, must always be exercised judiciously to avoid public distrust.
On the other hand, several rights groups, including Advocates for Justice Reform (AJR) and Women Against Domestic Violence (WADV), condemned the decision, arguing that it could embolden future offenders and erode faith in the judiciary’s independence.
Social media users also joined the discussion, with many questioning whether political influence or public sympathy played a role in the outcome.
However, supporters maintain that Sanda’s case underscores the importance of mercy and rehabilitation within the justice system, especially for those who show genuine remorse and positive transformation.
As the controversy continues, the debate over balancing justice, compassion, and public accountability in Nigeria’s criminal justice system remains far from over.