The decision by President Bola Tinubu to reverse part of the recent presidential pardon has generated widespread reaction across Nigeria and beyond. In this report, FRANCISCA ADIDI examines the controversy, the reasons behind the review and how Nigerians have responded to what many describe as a historic policy reversal
Public outcry over the pardon list
The recent presidential pardon and its subsequent review attracted intense commentary from the media and individuals within Nigeria and across the world.
Recall that Maryam Sanda and some other Nigerians were pardoned by President Tinubu, a decision that sparked mixed feelings, especially because of Sanda’s conviction for killing her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, in 2020.
However, just as families and relatives of those pardoned were still expressing gratitude to the President, Nigerians woke up to the news that some names, including Sanda’s, had been removed from the pardon list initially published on October 29, 2025.
The Presidency confirmed that Sanda’s name was among those deleted from the list, after an outcry over the inclusion of individuals convicted of serious crimes. The statement by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, explained that President Tinubu ordered the removal of persons convicted of kidnapping, drug trafficking, human trafficking, fraud and illegal firearms offences.
The initial pardon of 175 convicts, announced after the National Council of State meeting on October 9, 2025, triggered a wave of outrage across the country. The revised decision, Onanuga said, followed consultations and was made “in furtherance of the President’s discretionary powers under Section 175(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).”
He added that the review was necessary due to “the seriousness and security implications of some offences, the need to be sensitive to the feelings of the victims and society, and to boost the morale of law enforcement agencies.”
Mixed reactions from legal, civic bodies
The Nigerian Bar Association’s Section on Public Interest and Development Law (SPIDEL) had earlier urged the President to rescind what it described as “a grave error of judgment,” arguing that “granting mercy to a convicted murderer sends the wrong signal about accountability and deterrence.”
Following the review, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), released an official gazette dated October 23, 2025, confirming that the number of beneficiaries had been reduced from 175 to 120. High-profile names, including Maryam Sanda, were reclassified under reduced terms of imprisonment rather than full pardon.
Fagbemi explained that the reassessment was carried out after the President received concerns from the Council of State to ensure that only deserving individuals benefited. “During this final review, a few persons earlier recommended were found not to have met the requirements and were accordingly delisted, while in some other cases, sentences were reviewed and reduced to reflect fairness, justice, and the spirit of the exercise,” he said.
President Tinubu also directed that the Secretariat of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy be moved from the Ministry of Special Duties to the Federal Ministry of Justice, while new guidelines for future exercises would now require mandatory consultation with prosecuting agencies before approval.
Tinubu’s responsiveness, public commentary
Many observers have commended President Tinubu for showing sensitivity to public opinion and for taking corrective measures. According to Gambo Sule, a Jos-based public servant, “Tinubu breaks the record of being the first President to reverse a presidential pardon. While Nigerians were predicting she might escape prison, this reversal restores some confidence in justice.”
Another respondent, who preferred anonymity, described the initial decision as “a hurried one without weighing the gravity of the crimes.” Similarly, Mrs Josy Simon, also from Jos, remarked, “Leadership decisions should not be taken in a hurry. The President should always seek expert advice before acting.”
Human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), speaking on Arise News on October 31, called on the Attorney-General to apologise for what he termed “a grave administrative error,” noting that some of the cases were under state jurisdiction and thus should have been handled by governors.
Meanwhile, Phrank Shaibu, Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, criticised the administration for what he described as a “reactionary and embarrassing reversal.” In a statement published by VANGUARD, Shaibu said the review came only after “intense public outrage,” accusing the government of lacking foresight and moral conviction.
He further demanded transparency on who compiled the original list, the criteria used and the Attorney-General’s role in the flawed process.
The episode has ultimately served as a cautionary tale for future governments. While President Tinubu’s reversal may have restored some public confidence, it also underscores the importance of due diligence, institutional accountability and sensitivity in the exercise of executive powers. As Nigerians continue to debate the implications, one lesson stands clear: justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.