By Chigozie Igbo Jr
The Supreme Court on Friday nullified President Bola Tinubu’s decision to commute the death sentence of Maryam Sanda, ruling that the President acted outside his constitutional powers by granting clemency while her case was still pending before the courts.
In a split decision of four to one, the apex court affirmed the death sentence earlier imposed on Sanda by the Federal Capital Territory High Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal. Sanda was convicted in 2020 for the murder of her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, during a domestic altercation at their Abuja residence.
The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal, holding that the prosecution had successfully proved the charge of culpable homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Moore Adumein faulted the executive intervention, insisting that the presidential pardon was improper given the subsisting judicial process.
“It was wrong for the Executive to seek to exercise its power of pardon over a case of culpable homicide, in respect of which an appeal was pending,” Justice Adumein held.
President Tinubu had approved a commutation of Sanda’s sentence to 12 years’ imprisonment in October, following a review of a clemency list initially containing 175 names. Several names were later removed due to what the Presidency described as the “nature of their crime.”
Presidential Adviser Bayo Onanuga had defended the decision at the time, saying the commutation was granted “on compassionate grounds, in the best interest of the children and in recognition of her remorse and good conduct.”
The move generated public debate and drew objections from the family of the late Bello. The list was later adjusted after consultations with the Council of State and in response to what the Presidency termed “public opinion,” leading to the removal of individuals convicted of serious offences such as kidnapping, drug trafficking and arms dealing.
With Friday’s judgment, the Supreme Court has effectively set aside the President’s intervention, reinstating Sanda’s original death sentence. She has been in custody for about six years, and the commuted sentence would have left her with roughly six years to serve.
The ruling also adds to ongoing national discourse on the limits of presidential powers under Section 175 of the Constitution, which provides for pardons, clemency and commutation of sentences. The court’s verdict makes clear that such powers cannot be exercised while a case is still under judicial consideration.