The Supreme Court has set aside President Bola Tinubu’s decision to commute the death sentence of Maryam Sanda, ruling that the executive exceeded its powers by issuing a pardon while her appeal was still pending before the courts.

In a judgement delivered on Friday, the apex court, in a split decision of four to one, affirmed the death sentence imposed on Sanda by the Federal Capital Territory High Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal. Sanda was convicted in 2020 for killing her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, during a domestic dispute in their Abuja home.

The court dismissed her appeal, holding that the prosecution had proved the charge of culpable homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Moore Adumein held that the Court of Appeal was right to affirm the trial court’s decision. He ruled that the presidential intervention was improper given the state of the case.

Justice Adumein said: “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.”

Sanda’s sentence had been reduced to 12 years’ imprisonment in October when President Tinubu approved a revised clemency list. The decision followed a review process that initially included 175 names before several were removed due to what the Presidency described as the “nature of their crime.”

At the time, Presidential Adviser Bayo Onanuga said the commutation of Sanda’s sentence was “based on compassionate grounds for the best interest of the children and good conduct,” adding that she had shown “remorsefulness.”

The initial decision sparked public debate, including objections from Bello’s family. Following consultations with the Council of State and what the Presidency called “public opinion,” the list was adjusted, removing several individuals convicted of offences such as kidnapping, drug-related crimes and arms dealing.

The Supreme Court’s ruling has now effectively reversed the President’s intervention.
Sanda has spent about six years in custody, and the commuted sentence would have left her with approximately six years to serve. With Friday’s judgment, the earlier death sentence is reinstated.

The ruling also comes amid broader scrutiny of the President’s exercise of powers under Section 175 of the Constitution, which allows pardons, clemency or commutation of sentences. The court’s position indicates that such powers cannot be applied in cases that are still under judicial consideration.