RE-EXAMINING THE SCOPE AND LIMITS OF THE PREROGATIVE OF MERCY UNDER THE NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION: A CASE STUDY OF RECENT PRESIDENTIAL AND OSUN STATE PARDONS

Abstract

One of the most extensive discretionary powers granted to the Nigerian government is the prerogative of mercy, which is intended to address injustices, mitigate severe penalties, and uphold 
humanitarian principles within the criminal justice system. However, its use has often sparked controversy, especially when applied to infamous or politically linked criminals. With particular reference to the recent pardons granted by Governor Ademola Adeleke of Osun State and President 
Bola Ahmed Tinubu in October 2025, this essay re-examines the constitutional scope, procedural structure, and moral limits of Nigeria's prerogative of mercy. Based on a doctrinal examination of 
Sections 175 and 212 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), pertinent court rulings, and a comparative analysis between India and South Africa, the study reveals that both acts of clemency 
highlight serious problems with Nigeria's compassion system, despite their apparent procedural compliance. These include a lack of clear standards, shoddy consultation procedures, and a lack 
of consideration for victims' rights. The results imply that moral responsibility and public opinion are now key considerations for determining whether executive pardons are legitimate. The paper argued that the prerogative of mercy must operate as a constitutional obligation rooted in justice, reason, and moral responsibility rather than as a political privilege. To rebuild public trust and guarantee a fair balance between compassion and justice in Nigeria's democracy, the paper ended 
by recommending extensive reform through legislative regulation, the dissemination of advisory recommendations, conditional pardons, and limited judicial scrutiny.