In a dramatic legal twist that has sent ripples across Nigeria’s judicial and political landscape, the Supreme Court on Thursday, December 12, 2025, nullified President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s presidential pardon granted to convicted husband-killer, Maryam Sanda, reinstating the death-by-hanging sentence originally imposed by an FCT High Court.
Sanda, who was convicted in 2020 for the murder of her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, during a violent domestic dispute, had her conviction affirmed by the Court of Appeal. Her final hope appeared to come earlier this year when President Tinubu, citing humanitarian concerns, commuted her death sentence to 12 years’ imprisonment — a move that ignited public debate and polarized legal experts.
But in a landmark 4–1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the presidential intervention was improper, unconstitutional, and executed at a time when it could influence an ongoing judicial process.
Delivering the majority judgment, Justice Moore Adumein minced no words. He declared that Sanda’s appeal lacked merit, adding that the prosecution had “proven beyond any flicker of doubt” that she intentionally caused the death of her husband. Adumein stressed that the evidence — including witness testimonies, forensic details, and the sequence of events — collectively removed any ambiguity regarding her guilt.
He further chastised the presidential pardon, stating that executive clemency cannot be exercised in a manner that interferes with or preempts judicial authority, especially in capital offences still undergoing appellate review.
“A pardon granted in the shadow of an active appeal in a homicide case is not only irregular but undermines the sanctity of the judicial process,” Justice Adumein noted in his strongly worded address.
While the majority held firm, one justice delivered a dissenting opinion, though the details were not immediately made public. Legal analysts say the lone dissent highlights the sensitivity and complexity of presidential powers when juxtaposed against judicial finality.
The decision has already sparked intense nationwide reactions. Human rights advocates expressed shock at the reinstatement of the death penalty, calling it a step backward in the campaign for penal reform. Others, including victims’ rights groups, hailed the ruling as a victory for due process and a check on executive overreach.
For Maryam Sanda, whose case has captivated public attention for years, today’s decision closes the final judicial chapter. Unless extraordinary relief is sought through other constitutional mechanisms, she now faces the grim reality of the original sentence.
As Nigeria grapples with the implications of this judgment, one thing is clear: the Supreme Court has drawn a sharp line between mercy and law — and reaffirmed that even presidential compassion must bow to the supremacy of justice.
About The Author
