Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
Abuja, Nigeria — In a landmark ruling that has reignited national debate on the interplay between executive powers and judicial authority, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has upheld the death sentence imposed on Maryam Sanda, rejecting the controversial presidential pardon that had briefly spared her from execution. The apex court’s decision, delivered on 12 December 2025, reinstates the original capital punishment handed down for her conviction in the 2017 killing of her husband, Bilyaminu Bello.
The judgment, issued by a five‑member panel of justices, saw a 4–1 majority affirm the earlier rulings of lower courts — the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court and the Court of Appeal — which had both upheld Sanda’s death sentence after her conviction for culpable homicide. The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal as lacking merit, confirming that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.
At the centre of the legal controversy was a presidential pardon granted by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in October 2025, which had reduced Sanda’s death sentence to 12 years’ imprisonment on compassionate grounds, citing letters from her family and her conduct in custody, among other factors. That presidential directive was part of a larger exercise of executive clemency issued to 175 convicts, which drew widespread public attention and, in Sanda’s case, strong criticism from the family of the late victim.
In overturning the pardon, the Supreme Court ruled that it was improper for the executive to exercise the prerogative of mercy in a case where an appeal was still pending before the judiciary. Justice Moore Adumein, delivering the lead judgment, stressed that the separation of powers must be upheld and that the executive could not pre‑empt judicial processes by intervening while a substantive legal challenge to conviction and sentence was unresolved.
The court’s determination restores the original sentence of death by hanging, which was first imposed by the trial court in 2020 after finding that Sanda had stabbed her husband during a domestic dispute in their Abuja residence. Despite her claims that the killing resulted from her husband falling onto a broken shisha pot during an argument, the lower courts rejected those arguments and affirmed her conviction and sentence on appeal.
Reactions to the ruling were swift and polarized. Supporters of the decision — including human rights advocates focused on consistency in the application of justice — argued that it reaffirmed the judiciary’s independence and the fundamental principle that no branch of government should override judicial processes. Many legal analysts also commended the apex court for clearly delineating the limits of executive clemency in criminal matters, particularly where appeals are active.
Conversely, critics — including some civil liberties groups and those who had advocated for mercy based on Sanda’s conduct in custody and her responsibilities as a parent — suggested that the ruling could have far‑reaching implications for future uses of presidential clemency in Nigeria’s justice system.
The victim’s family, which had previously condemned the presidential pardon as the “worst possible injustice,” had welcomed the court’s earlier rejection of the pardon in public statements and had maintained that upholding the death sentence was necessary for justice and closure.
Legal commentators point out that the Supreme Court’s decision will likely reaffirm judicial precedent regarding the limits of executive interference in ongoing appeals, particularly in life‑and‑death matters. By reinforcing that clemency powers should not circumvent judicial review, the ruling may resurface questions about how and when the executive branch can appropriately exercise mercy in criminal cases.
Maryam Sanda’s case has remained one of the most widely publicised legal controversies in Nigeria in recent years, highlighting tensions between calls for compassion and strict punitive justice. Originally convicted by a Federal Capital Territory High Court in January 2020 and subsequently upheld on appeal, her continued legal battles captured national attention — especially after her name appeared on the presidential pardon list earlier this year.
The Supreme Court’s ruling effectively restores the original capital sentence, setting aside all recent executive actions that had intervened in her punishment. At the time of the presidential pardon announcement, Sanda had spent nearly seven years in custody, leading some to argue in favour of leniency based on remorse and rehabilitation; others vehemently objected, saying the gravity of her crime warranted the maximum sentence under Nigerian law.
With the apex court’s judgment now official, the legal machinery may move to enforce the reinstated sentence in accordance with Nigeria’s criminal justice procedures. The ruling is expected to spark further legal, political, and ethical discourse both within Nigeria and internationally among observers concerned with human rights, capital punishment, and the balance of powers within democratic governance.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments