Tag: Supreme court

 

The retrial of former Gov. Sule Lamido of Jigawa, his two sons and others over alleged N1.35 billion fraud suffered setback, on Friday, at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The case, which is now reassigned to Justice Peter Lifu, could not proceed due to the absence of the defendants in court.

Although the lawyer to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Chile Okoroma, SAN, and counsel to the defendants, Joe Agi, SAN, were in court, the defendants were conspicuously absent.

Agi, while addressing the court, said the hearing notice for the proceedings was received late yesterday at about 5pm.

The lawyer said the defendants, who based in Kano State, could not make it since there was no available aircraft to convey them to Abuja.

Agi, however, undertook to produce them in the next adjourned date.

Okoroma, who appeared for the EFCC, sought a re-assignment of the matter back to the former trial judge, Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu, who handled the case.

He said a letter had been written to the chief judge in this respect.

However, Agi said he was yet to get the letter.

Justice Lifu then asked Okoroma, the former Director of Legal Services in the EFCC, if he was still in service.

“Are you part of the EFCC? Are you still in the employment of EFCC?” the judge asked.

“No my Lord,” Okoroma responded.

“The onus of your protest is that you want my Lord, Hon Justice Ojukwu, to come from Calabar to take the case,” Justice Lifu said.

Th judge, who observed that the case had lingered since 2015, said there is the need to commence trial on time.

“The CJ assigned the case to me and it is my duty to start hearing, as obedient servant,’ he said.

The judge then directed Okoroma to avail a copy of the letter to Agi, who said there were objections he would want to raise.

The case was subsequently adjourned until April 1 for hearing.

The Supreme Court had, on Jan. 16, ordered a trial of the former governor and others over alleged N1.35 billion fraud.

A five-member panel of the apex court issued the directive in two unanimous judgments delivered in the two appeals filed in the name of the Federal Government by the EFCC.

Both appeals were against the July 25, 2023 judgments by the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which upheld the no-case submission made by Lamido and others and struck out the 37-count charge on which they were being prosecuted, on the grounds that the Federal High Court, Abuja lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case.

In the lead judgments of the Supreme Court, Justice Abubakar Umar set aside the July 25, 2023 judgments of the Court of Appeal and affirmed the earlier decision by Justice Ojukwu of the Federal High Court, Abuja which overruled the no-case submissions by Lamido and others and ordered them to enter their defence.

The EFCC, in the 37-count charge, among others, accused Lamido of abusing his position as governor between 2007 and 2015, allegedly laundering sums of money received as kickbacks from companies that were awarded contracts by the Jigawa State Government under his leadership.

The other defendants charged alongside Lamido are: his two sons – Aminu and Mustapha; Aminu Wada Abubakar and their companies – Bamaina Holdings Ltd and Speeds International Ltd.

 

By Sylvester Udemezue

The headline published by The Nation reads: *“BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court overrides FG’s pardon for Maryam Sanda, affirms death sentence.”* With due respect, this headline is misleading, legally inaccurate, and constitutionally unsustainable. It mischaracterises both the Supreme Court’s role and the scope of the President’s Prerogative of Mercy under section 175 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

*THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT, COULD NOT OVERRIDE THE PRESIDENT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES*

The Supreme Court merely performed its judicial duty: it determined the appeal before it and affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts. Nothing in the judgment revoked, voided, negated or restricted the powers of the President under section 175 of the Constitution. A court cannot (and did not) strip the President of the Prerogative of Mercy. That prerogative remains plenary, exclusive, and constitutionally entrenched. To suggest that the court “overrode” the President is therefore a misunderstanding of law and a distortion of constitutional boundaries.

*WHAT THE SUPREME COURT ACTUALLY SAID, DID*

While affirming the death sentence, the Supreme Court (per Adumein JSC) observed that “It was wrong for the executive to seek to exercise its power of pardon over a case of culpable homicide, in respect of which an appeal was pending.” However, with profound respect to my learned Lord, this statement does not accurately capture the extensive scope of presidential mercy under section 175. The Prerogative of Mercy is not limited by the judicial calendar. It is not suspended by the pendency of an appeal. It is not held in abeyance until the courts have finished their work. The President’s power exists independently, co-equally, and at all times, subject only to the Constitution.

*SECTION 175 CFRN: A POWER THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT CURTAIL*

Section 175(1) of the Constitution enables the President to:

1. Grant any person concerned with or convicted of an offence a pardon,

2. Substitute a less severe form of punishment, or

3. Remit the whole or part of a sentence.

These powers may be exercised (a). Before conviction; (b). After conviction; (c). During appeal; (d). After appeal; (e). Even after affirmation by the Supreme Court. Unlike section 174 (Nolle Prosequi), which cannot be invoked after judgment, section 175 is not time-bound. The Prerogative of Mercy is a sovereign executive power, not subject to judicial veto. Courts interpret laws; the President dispenses mercy. The two spheres do not collide: they complement each other within constitutional design.

*EVEN TODAY, PRESIDENT TINUBU MAY STILL NEUTRALISE THE DEATH SENTENCE*

Despite the Supreme Court’s judgment affirming the death sentence, President Tinubu still retains unrestricted authority by virtue of Section 175 of the Constitution to (a) grant absolute pardon to Maryam Sanda, setting her entirely free; (b). commute her death sentence to life imprisonment; or (c). reduce the sentence to any lesser term he considers appropriate. This would not “invalidate” the Supreme Court judgment: it would merely neutralise its penal consequences, exactly as the Constitution permits. *Mercy does not erase guilt; it only extinguishes punishment. The judiciary pronounces judgment. The executive may temper its effect.* That balance is foundational to constitutional democracy.

*THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER MARYAM SANDA SHOULD BE PARDONED*

The moral or policy question of whether she deserves clemency is not my concern here. The present discourse is strictly about constitutional competency. And on that question, the answer is clear: *Yes: President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has the constitutional power to “override” the effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment through the Prerogative of Mercy.* To say otherwise is to misunderstand the Constitution and mislead the public.

*CONCLUSION*

The Supreme Court did not override the President. It could not, and it did not attempt to. It simply affirmed a judicial decision. The President’s Prerogative of Mercy stands untouched, fully operative, and constitutionally supreme within its domain. Therefore, the headline proclaiming that the Supreme Court has “overridden” the President is inaccurate and should be corrected for the sake of public enlightenment.

 

(Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems),
Lawyer, Law Teacher and Public-interest Advocate.
08021365545.
udems@therealityministry.ngo, udemsbackup@gmail.com.
(12 December 2025))

 

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the death sentence imposed on Maryam Sanda, who was convicted of killing her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, in their Abuja home in 2017.

Okay News reports that Sanda, daughter-in-law of a former PDP Chairman, was sentenced to death by hanging by an Abuja High Court on January 27, 2020. She had spent about six years and eight months in Suleja prison before President Bola Tinubu, exercising executive powers, commuted her punishment to 12 years imprisonment as part of a recent presidential pardon.

A five-member panel of the Supreme Court delivered a 4–1 split decision, dismissing Sanda’s appeal and reinstating the original death sentence.

In the lead judgment authored by Justice Moore Adumein, the court held that the prosecution proved the charge of culpable homicide beyond reasonable doubt and that both the trial court’s verdict and the Court of Appeal’s affirmation were legally sound.

The apex court further ruled that it was wrong for President Tinubu to grant clemency in a case still undergoing judicial review, stressing that the executive cannot override a subsisting court process.

The Attorney-General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, had earlier defended Sanda’s inclusion in the presidential pardon list, describing the decision as “compassionate” and “in the best interest of the children.” He listed her “good conduct, remorsefulness, and positive influence on other inmates” as factors that warranted leniency.

The Supreme Court rejected all issues raised in Sanda’s appeal and declared that her conviction was valid and properly grounded in law.