In a landmark decision with significant legal and political ramifications, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has overturned the presidential pardon granted by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to an Abuja-based housewife, Maryam Sanda, and affirmed her death sentence for the killing of her husband.
Sanda was originally sentenced to death by hanging in 2020 over the death of her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, during a domestic dispute. However, earlier this year, President Tinubu reduced her sentence to 12 years’ imprisonment on compassionate grounds, citing her remorse and the welfare of her two young children.
The presidential clemency decision sparked nationwide debate over executive power and the limits of mercy in capital cases.
Supreme Court Delivers Final Judgment
In a four-to-one split decision delivered on Friday, the Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence originally handed down by the Court of Appeal, Abuja, effectively nullifying the presidential pardon. The Court of Appeal had previously upheld the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory’s (FCT) ruling, which sentenced Sanda to death by hanging.
The Apex Court also resolved all issues raised in Sanda’s appeal, dismissing them as being without merit.
Justice Moore Adumein, delivering the lead judgment personally, stated that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and that the Court of Appeal was correct in affirming the trial court’s judgment. The Supreme Court emphasized that the executive pardon was improperly granted while Sanda’s appeal was still pending, rendering it constitutionally void.
Background of the Case
Maryam Sanda’s case dates back to January 2020, when she was convicted of murdering her husband during a domestic altercation in their Maitama residence. The case has since become a flashpoint in discussions about the separation of powers, capital punishment, and presidential authority in Nigeria.
President Tinubu’s October 2025 pardon had sought to commute the death sentence to a 12-year imprisonment term on compassionate grounds. However, legal experts and members of the late Bilyaminu Bello’s family criticised the pardon, arguing that it undermined judicial authority and denied justice to the victim’s family.
Reactions and Implications
The Supreme Court’s ruling has elicited mixed reactions:
-
Legal analysts praise the judgment as a reaffirmation of judicial independence and the rule of law.
-
Victim advocacy groups welcomed the decision, stating that it upholds justice and ensures accountability for violent crimes.
-
Supporters of the pardon expressed disappointment, warning that the decision may reopen debates on executive discretion in criminal matters.
What Happens Next
With the Supreme Court’s ruling now final and binding:
-
Maryam Sanda’s death sentence will be reinstated, with the appropriate legal procedures to be followed.
-
The case highlights the constitutional limits of presidential clemency, especially in cases where appeals are pending.
-
It is expected to spark national conversations on capital punishment, justice for victims, and the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive.
Significance of the Ruling
This judgment sets a precedent on the limits of presidential pardons and reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rule of law. It also serves as a reminder of the legal and moral responsibilities involved in capital punishment cases, ensuring that executive discretion cannot override judicial determinations.
As we digest this decision, the case of Maryam Sanda will continue to resonate as a landmark in the ongoing debate over justice, mercy, and the separation of powers.
