Not long ago, Nigerians awoke to the news of the granting of clemency by the nation’s President, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, to 175 inmates and ex-convicts in an exercise of his prerogative of mercy as granted by the country’s constitution.
The beneficiaries included those classified as repentant drug offenders, illegal miners, white collar-convicts and foreigners.
A press statement signed by Presidential Spokesman, Mr Bayo Onanuga, entitled, “Details of The Presidential Pardon and Clemency”, issued in the wake of the controversy generated by the clemency which listed the names of all the 175 inmates and ex-convicts granted amnesty, also included the late Major General Mamman Vatsa; Major Akubo; Professor Magaji Garba; capital offenders such as Maryam Sanda; Ken Saro Wiwa; and the other Ogoni Eight; as well as some on death row whose sentences were commuted to life.
The Presidency had in a National Council of States (NCS) meeting in Aso Rock, said that some of the beneficiaries had shown remorse and been of good conduct while others were pardoned due to old age, acquisition of new vocational skills or enrolment at the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN).
But this explanation did not seem to sit well with many Nigerians who had questioned the rationale behind granting pardon to some of the offenders whose crimes were deemed very grave to society. Of particular mention was the pardon to drug offenders and a woman who had killed her husband.
Indeed, owing to the harm drugs have been causing to society, we join the rest of Nigerians to wonder why such people should ever be allowed to rejoin society without exhausting their sentences.
With the President himself being accused of drug dealings, his pardoning of drug dealers is seen therefore as intentional and this is one suspicion that will take a lot to douse.
This has also led to the belief in some quarters that the amnesty was due to such influences as politics and money, being that many of the beneficiaries are of high profile.
We take exception to the reasons given by the Presidency for the granting of amnesty to many of the people involved. We take this position because we view their crimes as serious and injurious to society. We are worried that this development of giving them amnesty has a tendency of weakening the fight against harmful and illicit drugs.
We can imagine the frustrations of those who worked hard to get those people arrested and prosecuted, only to watch them walk through the prison gates as free people or having their sentences slashed.
This is certainly not encouraging, to say the least. It is as if the country operates two sets of laws: one for the poor and one for the rich, influential and powerful. Indeed, it would seem as though some of them were jailed in the first place only because of the pressure applied by the citizenry and the outrage that trailed their actions. Thus, jailing them looked like a deliberate action to momentarily shield them from the public glare and then let them free afterwards.
All over the civilised world, crime attracts punishment and the correctional centres are there to reform them, such that after serving their terms, they come out as better citizens. Can the same be said about many of those released by the Presidency? We don’t think so.
All in all, we believe the Presidency’s amnesty to some of those people in question is more injurious than helpful to society.
