Supreme Court rejects Presidential Clemency for Maryam Sanda, upholds death sentence

Supreme Court rejects Presidential Clemency for Maryam Sanda, upholds death sentence

In a distinctly great ruling that addresses the constitutional obstacles among government mercy and judicial finality, the ideally suited court docket of Nigeria has overridden the pardon granted with the aid of President Bola Tinubu to Maryam Sanda, who was once convicted of the homicide of her husband, Bilyaminu Bello.

The courtroom, in a cut up choice on Friday, affirmed the dying sentence by means of striking at first exceeded down to Sanda.

Maryam Sanda, an Abuja-based totally residence spouse, was sentenced to loss of life by using putting in 2020 via a high court docket of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) for fatally stabbing her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, at some point of a domestic dispute in 2017.

Her conviction used to be later upheld by the courtroom of appeal in Abuja. The tragic and excessive-profile nature of the case had sparked giant countrywide debate concerning domestic violence and justice in Nigeria.

The constitutional battle arose these days whilst President Tinubu, workout the government prerogative of mercy, decreased Sanda’s sentence to twelve years imprisonment, mentioning “compassionate grounds” and “the first-class interest of the toddlers.”

This act of clemency used to be done while Sanda’s final appeal towards her conviction was nevertheless pending before the best courtroom.

In its judgment, the Apex court, in a 4-to-one majority selection, resolved all problems raised in Sanda’s attraction and dismissed it for lacking advantage, thereby upholding the decisions of the decrease courts.

Justice Moore Adumein, turning in the lead judgment, held that the prosecution had efficaciously proved the case of culpable murder past an affordable doubt, validating the court of attraction’s decision to verify the trial court’s judgment.

Crucially, the supreme court additionally addressed the constitutional impropriety of the executive action. Justice Adumein held that it was basically incorrect for the executive to try to workout its power of pardon or reprieve over a case of culpable murder while an attraction referring to that conviction was nonetheless pending before the very best court docket.

This a part of the ruling clarifies the principle that the judicial process need to be fully exhausted before the executive prerogative of mercy may be legitimately invoked in such capital offences, preserving the separation of powers and the integrity of the judicial system.