Tinubu & Sowore: Understanding Clemency (Pardon), Exclusion and the Limits of Protest

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent signed Presidential Clemency List has sparked rippled reactions across the nation — a mix of jubilation, skepticism, and agitation.

Some Nigerians faulted the inclusion of certain convicted individuals while others demanded the pardon of specific high-profile detainees such as Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

atotoDaily recalls that the power to grant pardon in Nigeria is constitutional. Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution empowers the President to exercise this right after consulting the Council of State and receiving advice from the Presidential Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy. This means the process is neither arbitrary nor unilateral — it involves input from senior figures across the executive, judiciary, and legislature.

One notable example is Maryam Sanda, convicted for murdering her husband. Her late husband’s father, Alhaji Ahmed Bello Isa, had publicly appealed for clemency on humanitarian grounds, citing her two young children. Her inclusion on the pardon list, therefore, followed due moral and procedural review.

Across the world, clemency has always been both legal and moral in nature: Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon (U.S., 1974) to heal national wounds, Nelson Mandela and Jacob Zuma used mass pardons to promote reconciliation, Ghana’s John Mahama and Nana Akufo-Addo granted humanitarian pardons on similar grounds.

Thus, presidential clemency remains a universal instrument of restorative justice, not a political favour.

“President Tinubu’s mercy is not selective — it is structured. Clemency rewards reform, not rebellion.”

In contrast, Nnamdi Kanu’s exclusion is rooted in legal procedure. His trial is still ongoing at the Supreme Court and Federal High Court, and by law, a pardon cannot be granted for a case still under judicial consideration. The Prerogative of Mercy applies only to convicted persons, not those awaiting judgment or appeal.

Beyond legal grounds, Kanu’s case also carries national security implications, given charges of treasonable felony, unlawful possession of arms, and incitement linked to IPOB’s activities in the Southeast — an organization designated as a terrorist group since 2017.

Global parallels reinforce this restraint: Spain’s Carles Puigdemont wasn’t pardoned until after peace negotiations concluded, The U.S. withheld clemency for Capitol riot participants until full convictions were entered, South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission required full confession before amnesty.

“Mercy must follow justice — not replace it.”

Amidst the clemency debate, Omoyele Sowore, activist and former presidential candidate, led protests demanding Nnamdi Kanu’s unconditional release.
While protest is a constitutional right (Sections 39 & 40 of the Constitution), it carries boundaries under Section 45, which restricts rights in the interest of national security, public order, and morality.

Authorities argue that Sowore’s rallies risked crossing from civil advocacy into judicial interference, especially since they sought a release outside court processes.
Supporting or appearing to support a proscribed group under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 could legally amount to aiding an unlawful cause — even unintentionally.

Globally, democracies also draw this line: The U.S. restricts protests near courts demanding judicial outcomes, Spain limited pro-Catalan independence protests before conviction, France bans rallies seen as sympathetic to terrorism-linked figures.

Thus, the Sowore-led protest was viewed not as anti-government dissent but as potentially premature activism capable of undermining ongoing judicial and peace processes.

“If protests could overrule the judiciary, then justice would belong to the loudest, not the lawful.”

The government maintains that there are lawful avenues for advocacy, including: Demanding fair and speedy trial through the courts, Petitioning the National Assembly or National Human Rights Commission, Supporting reconciliation programs that reduce ethnic and separatist tensions.

The line between activism and anarchy, experts say, is respect for due process.

Nigeria’s democratic evolution depends on a delicate balance — compassion with accountability, mercy with justice, and protest with order.
President Tinubu’s clemency decision, though debated, underscores a broader principle: in every democracy, justice must lead mercy, and protest must respect law.