Femi Falana criticises presidential pardon by Tinubu, calling it a “colossal embarrassment” filled with constitutional breaches and legal irregularities.
Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, has strongly criticised the recent presidential pardon granted by President Bola Tinubu, calling the exercise a “colossal embarrassment” riddled with constitutional breaches and legal irregularities.
Speaking on ARISE News Channel’s The Morning Show, Falana said the pardon exposed glaring flaws in the administration of justice and showed a worrying disregard for constitutional limits.
Falana argued that the pardon process included several undeserving individuals. “Those who were not deserving of pardon were recommended,” he stated.
“For instance, one person was prosecuted by the EFCC for 11 years, convicted in April this year, and sentenced to imprisonment, yet his name appeared on the pardon list. This is unacceptable and undermines public confidence.”
He also criticised the inclusion of convicts prosecuted under state laws, describing it as unconstitutional.
“Those prosecuted under state laws were listed for federal pardon. Section 212 of the Constitution clearly states that only a state governor can pardon individuals convicted of theft, murder, or culpable homicide. Including these names on a federal pardon list violates the Constitution,” Falana emphasised.
The SAN further condemned the government’s response of reducing the original list from 175 convicts to 84. He described this as insufficient.
“Reducing the number does not erase the embarrassment caused by the flawed process. The government owes Nigerians an explanation and must ensure such mistakes are never repeated,” he said.
Falana also called on the Attorney General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, to publicly apologise.
“The very least the AGF can do is apologise. Saying ‘we have reviewed the list’ is inadequate. Nigerians deserve a full explanation,” he added.
The controversy began when President Tinubu initially granted clemency to 175 convicts, including pre-independence nationalists, drug offenders, murderers, and others. The move was widely condemned, forcing the administration to review the pardon list.
Presidential media aide, Bayo Onanuga, explained the review process. “Following consultations with the Council of State and public opinion, the President directed a further review of the approved list under his discretionary powers pursuant to Section 175(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Consequently, individuals convicted of serious offences such as kidnapping, drug-related crimes, human trafficking, fraud, and unlawful possession of firearms were removed. Others had their sentences commuted,” Onanuga stated.
Falana warned that misuse of the presidential pardon undermines the rule of law and encourages a culture of impunity.
“This is not a ceremonial exercise. It has serious implications for justice and accountability. Granting pardon to individuals recently convicted of serious crimes damages the credibility of government institutions,” he said.
Historically, presidential pardons have been reserved for correcting judicial errors or for humanitarian reasons.
Critics argue that recent exercises appear arbitrary and politically motivated, eroding public trust.
Falana insisted that the latest pardon reinforced a perception of disregard for legal standards.
“When individuals convicted of corruption or violent crimes receive pardon without proper scrutiny, it sends the wrong message. It undermines public confidence in governance,” he added.
Public reactions were swift and critical. Civil society groups and anti-corruption advocates condemned the pardon list, arguing that the process lacked transparency and accountability.
Social media users also voiced frustration, highlighting inconsistencies in how the pardons were applied. Falana said these reactions reflect the urgent need for reforms in the pardon process.
Despite reducing the list from 175 to 84, criticism persisted. Falana described the trimming as superficial.
“The reduction does not solve the problem. The process itself was flawed and has already caused a national embarrassment. Proper procedures must be followed to prevent such occurrences in the future,” he said.
Falana recommended establishing clear guidelines for presidential pardons. These guidelines, he said, should ensure only deserving individuals benefit, while maintaining compliance with constitutional provisions.
Transparency and accountability, he argued, are essential in safeguarding public trust.
The presidential pardon is a constitutional tool meant to balance justice with mercy. Falana’s critique underscores the tension between discretionary powers and adherence to law.
“The pardon is a significant power, but its misuse can weaken governance and erode public trust in leadership,” he concluded.
As the controversy continues, observers suggest that future pardon exercises must prioritize transparency, legal compliance, and public accountability.
Falana’s comments serve as a stern warning that discretionary powers, while extensive, are not beyond scrutiny.
More news at ireport247news