The Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation has moved to cool a political firestorm. The Honourable Attorney-General, Prince Lateef Fagbemi SAN, released a terse press statement on 16 October 2025. He insisted on the recent exercise of the Presidential prerogative of mercy. He stated it remains at “the final administrative stage.” He also emphasised that “no inmate approved for clemency … has been released from custody.”
The statement reiterated that a final verification is in progress. Instruments of release will be issued to the Controller-General of Corrections after this verification.
The presidency published a long list of purported beneficiaries of clemency. That clarification came afterward. The list has since triggered public outrage. It has also led to courtroom threats and demands for rescission by civil society heavyweights.
The State House itself released details of the pardon exercise. It described how scores of convicts and ex-convicts were considered. Rehabilitation, age, ill health, and historic injustice were cited among the rationales proffered.
Critics, however, say that the optics and the membership of the list suggest political calculation rather than purely humanitarian calculation.
The law and the ritual
The President’s power to grant pardons is not secret law. Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution gives the President the power of prerogative mercy. This includes the authority to grant pardons, remit sentences, or commute punishments for federal offences.
The clause is deliberately broad. It was drafted as an instrument of mercy and discretionary clemency, not a substitute appellate process.
That constitutional latitude explains, in part, the actions of successive administrations. They have used pardons to tidy political scores. Pardons also rectify historic wrongs or relieve humanitarian cases.
But the constitutional text is not the whole story. The Presidency and the Office of the AGF rely on a bureaucratic choreography.
The Presidential Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy interviews inmates, inspects correctional records and forwards recommendations.
Those recommendations pass through the Council of State and finally return to the President for approval. Only after those approvals are instruments of release prepared and sent to the Controller-General of Corrections for implementation.
The AGF’s statement emphasised that final administrative review and remedial edits are routine before instruments are dispatched.
Why the uproar
What has animated opposition is not just the existence of clemency as a legal device. It is the content and timing of this particular exercise that have stirred opposition.
Media reporting and commentators say the recently circulated list holds 175 names. It mixes categories that include drug convicts, illegal miners, and white-collar offenders. It also includes foreigners and, controversially, posthumous pardons. Additionally, historical figures whose supposed “convictions” date back to colonial and military eras are included.
Reports cite the inclusion of historic names such as Sir Herbert Macaulay. They also mention contentious cases like Major-General Mamman Jiya Vatsa and Ken Saro-Wiwa. These individuals are among those said to have been considered.
Human rights lawyers and public intellectuals have not held back. Chief Femi Falana (SAN) has urged an immediate withdrawal and review of the list. He argues that the federal procedure should not absorb cases that properly fall within state jurisdictions. It should not leave victims unheard.
Other commentators have warned that using a “pardon” for long-contested historical injustices is poor politics. It is also poor law. They prefer full exoneration or explicit redress. This is more favorable than the blunt instrument of clemency.
Procedural questions that must be answered
As the AGF frames it, the process is “pursuing the law to the letter” and there is “no delay.” But several forensic questions stay unanswered and demand urgent transparency.
1. Who exactly drafted the final list and on what evidential basis were individual cases elevated from “consideration” to “recommendation”? The Presidential Advisory Committee undertakes interviews and prison inspections. The public deserves to know the criteria applied and the minutes or summaries of those inspections.
2. Were victims or victims’ families consulted? International jurisprudence and comparative practice suggest victims should at least be informed. They should be given the opportunity to be heard where pardon affects public interest. Critics say failure to engage victims risks a constitutional and moral backlash. Comparative scholarship shows courts abroad have sometimes entertained procedural challenges where victims were denied any voice.
3. Which cases required state action rather than federal clemency? Lawyers, including Falana, point to the constitutional division of powers that consign some offences to state jurisdiction. If state-level convictions on a federal clemency list, that raises questions about overreach or administrative error.
4. Are the pardons politically selective? The inclusion of figures whose rehabilitation can’t be measured by typical criteria of penitence raises doubts. These figures are historically political casualties or high-profile convicts. This invites suspicion that the exercise is compensatory or reputational rather than corrective. Media reports suggest public pressure is already forcing the Presidency to consider excising controversial names from the list.
The jurisprudential boundary
Legal scholarship in Nigeria and comparative studies underscores a tension. The pardoning power is discretionary and conceived as mercy. Yet that discretion is not unconstrained in every jurisdiction.
Court decisions elsewhere have sometimes intervened where decisions are irrational, mala fide, or procedurally unfair. They do this to test rationality or to protect victims’ rights.
Nigerian scholars have warned that treating the prerogative as a purely private clemency erodes the rule of law. On the other hand, subjecting it to heavy judicial micromanagement will turn mercy into a courtroom debate. In short, there is scope for challenge should the process be arbitrary or improperly secretive.
The political arithmetic
President Tinubu’s administration has justified the action on mercy and correction of historic injustice. Yet pardons land in a political climate in which trust in institutions is fragile.
The optics of sweeping pardons that touch politically painful episodes are significant. These episodes include the Ogoni executions, coup trials, or well-known corruption cases. They will be read through partisan lenses.
The AGF’s assurance of a final administrative review is technically precise. Still, it will not extinguish suspicion. This will only happen if the administration publishes detailed criteria. They must also give the advisory committee’s findings and an audit trail for each decision.
What we will watch next
The next concrete step is the issuance of instruments of release and their transmission to the Controller-General of Corrections.
If instruments are issued, releases should be accompanied by documentary evidence of consideration and, where relevant, evidence of victims’ consultation.
The Presidency should explain the remedial grounds if instruments are withheld or names dropped. This helps avoid the impression that edits are purely political. Civil society and litigation are options for any aggrieved parties.
Demand for accountability
A prerogative of mercy, when administered well, is a humane correction to the bluntness of criminal punishment. When administered poorly, it can look like a mechanism for privilege. The AGF’s clarifying statement is welcome as damage control. But statements will not substitute for documents.
To restore public confidence, the government must publish the criteria used. It should also supply a redacted but substantive account of the advisory committee’s recommendations.
Additionally, they need to reveal the full legal basis for any posthumous or politically sensitive pardons. Transparency is not optional when the credibility of the justice system is on trial.
For now the exercise remains a paper ritual at the “final administrative stage.” But the public will judge the exercise differently. It will not be judged by the minister’s prose. Instead, it will be judged by whether the instruments of mercy are backed by the paperwork of fairness.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
