In the movie, ‘The Godfather’, which was based on Mario Puzo’s novel of same title, one of the most interesting scenes involved Amerigo Bonasera, a wealthy funeral home director, whose daughter had been brutally assaulted by two men. The case, of course, went to court but at the end of the obviously corrupted judicial process, the culprits were given suspended sentences which allowed them to walk home in freedom. With his daughter’s face disfigured due to the violence inflicted on her, Bonasera sought the help of Don Vito Corleone for retribution. While there is no point rehashing what followed, the story illustrates how people are sometimes pushed to seek jungle justice when the law is rigged against them. In Nigeria, the situation is now compounded by the fact that even the few instances where justice was believed to have been served could cynically be trumped by cheap politics.
In the exercise of his constitutional power on Prerogative of Mercy, President Bola Tinubu last week granted state pardon to 175 convicted persons—an action that has attracted public outrage. And justifiably so too. About 30 percent of those pardoned were convicted for drug-related offences while others had been jailed for such heinous crimes as murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, human trafficking etc. But perhaps the most controversial person on the list remains Ms Maryam Sanda who had been sentenced to death for killing her husband, in a domestic violence case that gripped the nation at the time and went as far as the Supreme Court where her fate was finally sealed. Or so Nigerians thought.
To the extent that many of the people who received presidential pardon committed crimes that negatively emblematise our country, questions are being asked about the values that drive this administration and the moral compass of the president. But before I continue, let me make one thing clear. The presidential power of pardon exists in one form or another in practically all countries. In the United States from where we borrowed the system of government, the idea was copied from the English prerogative of Kings. But the American founding fathers also had justifications for it. “The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity that without an easy access to exceptions in favour of the unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel,” according to Alexander Hamilton during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788. This was further amplified by William Howard Taft, the 27th US President (1909 to 1913) and the 10th US Chief Justice (1921 to 1930)—the only American to have held both offices. “The administration of justice by the courts is not necessarily always wise or certainly considerate of circumstances which may properly mitigate guilt,” Tuft said. “To afford a remedy, it has always been thought essential in popular governments, as well as in monarchies, to vest in some other authority than the courts power to ameliorate or avoid particular judgments.”
While the foregoing suggests that the idea of presidential pardon was instituted to promote the public good, its exercise has not always followed that ideal. In January this year, for instance, one of President Joe Biden’s last decisions in the White House was to issue blanket (and anticipatory) pardons to his brother, James Biden, James’s wife, Sara Jones Biden; his younger sister, Valerie Biden Owens; Valerie’s husband, John T Owens; and his younger brother, Francis W Biden. A month earlier, he had also issued “a full and unconditional” pardon to his son, Hunter Biden. The decisions were met with public opprobrium by most Americans.
In the context of this intervention, perhaps no pardon was as controversial as the one granted in December 2020 by President Donald Trump (in his first term) to four American security guards (working with a private company) who were convicted for the cold-blooded murder of 17 Iraqi civilians in 2007. “Few gestures could set back the cause of accountability for civilians in war as effectively as a pardon offered by a head of state for political reasons,” the Center for Civilians in Conflict Executive Director, Federico Borello said following the decision that attracted international condemnation. “The pardons are a disservice to all who operate within the bounds of the law in war, and an insult to the survivors and family members of those murdered.”
Coming back home, that is precisely the crux of the matter in the pardon granted Maryam Sanda by President Tinubu. In their reaction on Monday, the family of the late Bilyaminu Bello condemned the presidential pardon as “the worst possible injustice any family could be made to go through.” The statement was signed by Dr Bello Haliru Mohammed—a former University lecturer appointed Comptroller General of the Nigerian Customs Service (NCS) By General Ibrahim Babangida during the military era who was a Minister with different portfolios and acting national chairman of then ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) under the current dispensation. By the account of those in the know, he was the man who brought up the late Bilyaminu. I am aware of the joint press conference addressed by Bilyaminu’s biological father and Maryam Sanda’s father but given the stories in Abuja, the less said about it the better.
By making the power of pardon virtually unfettered, abuse is inevitable, especially in an environment like ours where every discretionary authority is often used not in promotion of public good but rather to serve private ends. But it is unconscionable that most of the recipients of President Tinubu’s pardon are people who have either abused public trust or committed serious crimes. What the presidential pardon reinforces is that in Nigeria, there is one set of laws for those who are connected (either on account of politics or wealth) and another set for those who are poor hence no lever to pull.
In January 2013, two contrasting verdicts were delivered in separate courts within an interval of five days–one in Abeokuta, Ogun State and the other in Abuja. In Abeokuta, a magistrate court sentenced a 49-year-old man by name Mustapha Adesina to two years in prison for stealing vegetables valued at N5,000. Five days later in Abuja, a former director of the Police Pension Board, John Yusuf, who admitted to stealing N2 billion, was sentenced to two-year imprisonment with an option of N750,000 fine!
As Stephen Prager reminded us in his journal article in the Florida Law Review Forum which advocates the abolition of presidential pardon in the US, “whatever good may come from pardons, they are completely dependent on the whims of the president in charge and who they happen to know.” In March this year, the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) Comptroller-General, Sylvester Nwakuche, told a Senate committee that 3,688 inmates are currently on death row in the country. Some of these people have been there for as long as three decades, including those who may have been wrongly convicted. But who cares about them?
For sure, President Tinubu had the power to do what he did. But the power to pardon, which is a heavy responsibility, should not become another instrument to pervert the cause of justice or a tool for underhand political deals that devalue our country.
ASUU and the ‘Onosode Agreement’
With the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) embarking on another strike action, I have succeeded in laying my hands on the October 2009 Gamaliel Onosode Committee Report on the agreement between the lecturers and the federal government which has remained the bone of contention till date. It all started on 14th December 2006, when the then Education Minister, Mrs Obiageli (Oby) Ezekwesili inaugurated the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN)/ASUU Re-Negotiation Committee. It was headed by the late Deacon Gamaliel Onosode, who was then pro-chancellor at the University of Ibadan. The ASUU Team was led by their president at the time, Dr. Abdullahi Sule. Unfortunately, many members of both the federal government and ASUU teams are now deceased.
Apart from Onosode, others from the government side were Professors Musa Abdullahi and Greg Iwu, as well as Rev. Father T. E. Uwaifo, Barrister Emeka Nwankpa, Senator Abdalla Wali and Ambassador Muhammed Adamu Jumba. They were all pro-chancellors in our public universities. The only other member outside the university system was Professor Mahmood Yakubu, then the Education Trust Fund (ETF) Executive Secretary. Incidentally, Yakubu—who was until last week the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Chairman—would later be appointed by President Jonathan to head the Committee on Needs Assessment of Nigerian Universities which submitted a comprehensive report in 2012.
Aside their president, there were also Professors Eskor Toyo, Omotayo Olorode, Chukuwka Okonjo, Idowu Awopetu, Ukachukwu Awuzie as well as Dr Festus Iyayi and many others in the ASUU Team. Although the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua inherited the committee from the previous administration, he paid close attention to their efforts such that the late Onosode met with him several times as the negotiations progressed. Some other members of the committee also had access to the president. It was perhaps during one of those informal sessions that the president was told a story which he shared with us.
A few weeks before the committee finally concluded its work, one of the ASUU members reportedly expressed frustrations that they had met for almost three years without reaching any concrete agreement. To this, Rev Father Uwaifo (now of blessed memory) was said to have countered, “I don’t want you to see these sessions like that. It’s like a boy and girl courting and meeting regularly to just talk without anything happening between them. The fact that both were always happy also meant something.” This reportedly elicited a sharp response from a member of ASUU team who asked, “Father, are you confessing here or how do you know that?”
With the roaring laughter that followed, the atmosphere in which the session ended was convivial. But the events since the submission of the report in 2009 have not been a laughing matter. Interested readers should watch out for my take on the agreement reached between the federal government and ASUU in the Onosode Report and what has transpired since then.
Mustapha Onoyiveta @ 60
I have already told the story of how the THISDAY/ARISE Chairman, Prince Nduka Obaigbena and the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua concluded my appointment as presidential spokesman on Friday 1st June 2007 behind my back. What followed was even more dramatic. I got a call from then Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Ambassador Baba Gana Kingibe, asking me to report in Abuja immediately with my passport because I would be travelling with the president to Germany on 5th June for the 2007 G-8 Summit.
Three days later, I arrived at the Villa with trepidation not knowing how I would be received by people with whom I had no prior relationship. But the moment I walked into the office of the ADC to the president, Mustapha Dennis Onoyiveta (then a Lt. Colonel) and he greeted me warmly in Yoruba, the tension eased. Although an Urhobo man from Delta State, Mustapha speaks fluent Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba and a few other Nigerian languages. By the time I left his office that day, Mustapha and I had become friends. And that relationship has not only endured till today, but it has also extended to our wives and children.
I know I am biased but I genuinely believe that in terms of professionalism and capacity, Mustapha is one of the best military officers this country has ever produced. Those who have read my book, ‘Power, Politics and Death: A front-row account of Nigeria under the late President Yar’Adua’ already have glimpses of the kind of military officer Mustapha was. Unfortunately, he was unjustly retired as a Brigadier General along with 37 other officers in June 2016. But as he clocks 60 this Sunday 19th October, I can only wish Mustapha a most wonderful birthday, long life and good health.
NB: You can follow me on my X (formerly Twitter) handle, @Olusegunverdict and on www.olusegunadeniyi.com
