Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar through his Senior Special Assistant, Phrank Shaibu has criticized President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration on Wednesday, following the revision of the presidential pardon list, stressing that the government’s actions demonstrate a pattern of “thinking after it acts” describing the revision as an “act of shame” rather than wisdom.
A presidential pardon is not a social experiment. It is a sacred constitutional power meant to reflect justice, mercy, and national interest…Who compiled the list of beneficiaries?What criteria justified freeing kidnappers and drug offenders? – Shaibu
The criticism, delivered by Phrank Shaibu, targets the administration’s initial decision to include individuals convicted of serious offenses, such as drug trafficking and kidnapping, which led to public backlash and a subsequent review. The revised list was issued by the Presidency after the initial one was withdrawn.
The President of Nigeria possesses the constitutional power of prerogative of mercy, often used to grant amnesty, clemency, or pardon. President Tinubu’s initial list of pardons became an issue of public debate due to the inclusion of certain high-profile individuals and convicts for serious offenses like drug trafficking and kidnapping.
Following public outcry, the President ordered a review of the list. The revised list, which reportedly excluded individuals convicted of serious offenses, still commuted the death sentence of Maryam Sanda for murder to 12 years imprisonment.
The opposition argues that the pardon is symptomatic of poor governance and a lack of foresight within the Tinubu administration. Atiku’s camp views the revision as a necessary reversal forced by public opinion, not proactive judgment.
Meanwhile for supporters, the Presidency’s subsequent action to withdraw and revise the list, reportedly deleting individuals convicted of serious crimes like kidnapping and drug trafficking, demonstrates a degree of responsiveness to public feedback.
The Presidency’s justification for the review was to be sensitive to the feelings of the victims of the crimes and to the society in general, in order to ensure adherence to bilateral obligations, aimed at controlling previously existing damages and restoring the trust of the public.
The political fallout continues as the opposition demands full disclosure of both the initial and revised lists to ensure accountability.
Leave a comment