In Nigeria’s ever-restless political theatre, silence can be strategy — or survival. For the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), it has lately been both. In the wake of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s controversial Presidential Amnesty List, the party’s uncharacteristic quietude seems less about maturity and more about avoiding self-inflicted wounds. And now, thanks to the curious intervention of Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), that silence looks wiser than ever.
When the nation expected the AGF to defend the Constitution with clarity, he instead delivered confusion wrapped in legalese — what many now describe as a clarification that needed clarification.
A Presidential Power or Ministerial Overreach?
The Nigerian Constitution, in Section 175 (1), leaves no ambiguity:
“The President may grant any person concerned with or convicted of any offence created by an Act of the National Assembly a pardon, either free or subject to lawful conditions, after consultation with the Council of State.”
Simple. Straightforward. Final.
The President signs, the Council of State advises, and the act of mercy becomes law.
But somehow, the AGF’s office has introduced a new doctrine of ‘final review stage’, implying that the President’s signature — and the Council’s nod — are not quite the last word. The statement from Fagbemi’s office on October 16, 2025, insists:
“No inmate approved for clemency has been released... the process remains at the final administrative stage which includes a review to ensure that all names and recommendations fully comply with established legal and procedural requirements.”
A review after the President has approved? That is like asking for a recount after the swearing-in.
A Constitution Twisted by Caution
The power of prerogative of mercy is one of the few absolute presidential powers. It is designed to be swift, final, and irreversible once exercised. It is not a committee project. Yet, in Fagbemi’s cautious prose, what should have been an act of leadership has been reduced to an “ongoing process”, as if the presidency itself needs bureaucratic proofreading.
By constitutional design, no minister has the power to temper, suspend, or reinterpret a presidential pardon. Once the President exercises that prerogative, every other hand — including the AGF’s — must execute, not deliberate. Anything less is an intrusion. Anything more is insubordination wrapped in diplomacy.
The irony is glaring: a government struggling to convince Nigerians of its decisiveness is now publicly debating whether its own signature counts.
A Nation Divided by Mercy
The controversy exploded after news broke that among the 175 pardoned individuals were names that stirred deep public resentment — including those convicted of drug trafficking, corruption, and homicide. Nigerians took to social media and radio call-ins, asking one question: Who advises the President on mercy?
Some activists hailed the inclusion of the Ogoni Nine as symbolic healing, but others — including environmental groups — rejected it, saying what the late Ken Saro-Wiwa and his comrades deserved was not pardon, but exoneration. As one campaigner told Reuters, “You pardon the guilty; you exonerate the innocent.”
Meanwhile, political watchers noted that the amnesty came just weeks after growing discontent over economic hardship — a timing many interpreted as a distraction tactic.
When the Clarifier Becomes the Confuser
The Attorney-General’s clarification, meant to calm outrage, only deepened suspicion. His attempt to reassure Nigerians that the process “follows due process” sounded eerily like a pre-emptive apology.
“Due process,” one senior lawyer quipped, “is what Nigerians hear when the government wants to legalize confusion.”
Fagbemi’s “final review” logic gives the impression that the government might be reconsidering the controversial names under public pressure — a move that, if true, would expose the presidency to accusations of reactive governance rather than principled leadership.
And if false, then it means the AGF has single-handedly muddied a constitutional act to appear incomplete — a public relations blunder of international proportions.
Political Earthquake Beneath Legal Grammar
The President’s amnesty list, which sources confirmed was signed and approved by the Council of State, was meant to project compassion and magnanimity — an image every leader desires. Instead, it has unleashed a storm that questions not only the wisdom of the act but also the unity within the government itself.
The APC, usually quick to boast, has opted for silence. Party strategists understand the optics: defending this controversy publicly risks alienating both the moral conservatives who see it as moral decay and the legal community who view it as procedural chaos.
In this rare moment, APC’s silence is its best policy. It is the difference between governance and gaffe.
The Law Speaks: Not Everything Is Reviewable
Constitutional experts warn that once a pardon is signed, it takes effect immediately; any review after that is administrative, not substantive. In the words of one senior constitutional lawyer,
“A presidential pardon cannot be subjected to another layer of validation. If the President’s signature still requires approval, then the presidency has been reduced to a department of the Ministry of Justice.”
And therein lies the tragedy — a presidency appearing hostage to its own bureaucracy.
The Public Mood
On the streets of Lagos and Kaduna, the reactions echo frustration. “So criminals go free, and they are still reviewing whether to free them?” asked a caller on Channels Radio. “Meanwhile, poor men rot in prison for stealing yam.”
Social media has been no kinder. One trending post simply read:
“They pardon the guilty, confuse the innocent, and silence the nation.”
The Questions that Won’t Go Away
- If the President signed, who is re-reviewing the list — and under what authority?
- Can due process override a constitutional act of mercy?
- Is this a legal correction or political face-saving exercise?
- And most dangerously — if the AGF can pause a presidential pardon, what else can he undo?
Between Law and Loyalty
What Nigeria witnesses today is not just a legal misstep but a crisis of confidence between law and politics. The AGF’s office, meant to protect presidential integrity, has instead created an image of disarray. It is one thing to manage controversy; it is another to manufacture it.
As one insider within the presidency reportedly lamented, “This was supposed to show the President’s heart — not his hesitation.”
Final Word
Mercy, by nature, is meant to heal. But mercy handled poorly reopens wounds.
President Tinubu’s amnesty, whatever its intention, now stands at the intersection of legality, morality, and perception. It is a reminder that in governance, as in law, timing and tone are everything.
For now, the APC remains wisely silent. The AGF, not so much. And in that silence, Nigerians have heard more truth than in all the clarifications combined.
“When mercy becomes procedural, justice becomes optional.”