Legal Effect of President, Governors’ Exercise of Prerogative of Mercy

Commissioner of Police Vs Alhaji Salisu Ibrahim Buhari (2000) FWLR (Part 1) Page 164:

The accused person in this case was a member of the House of Representatives and was then speaker. As Speaker of the House of Representatives, Salisu Buhari, an ebullient young man, became an amalgam of political savvy and sagacity and then bestrode the political contour of Nigeria like a leviathan. Little did people know then that Buhari was an impostor and an interloper who saw his way into the House of Represent atives with fake certificates ranging from a fake NYSC discharge cer­ tificate to a fake university degree allegedly from the University of Toronto, Canada. When The News magazine published all these facts, Buhari denied stoutly and even sued the magazine in court, claiming damages for libel. While the suit was pending, the University of Toronto wrote back to say that Buhari was never a student in the university. The heat was too much for Buhari to endure and he caved in and was subsequently charged to court for the offences of forgery and uttering and perjury, Buhari withdrew his membership of. the National Assembly and made a public apology in the following words:

“I apologise to the nation. I apologise to my family and friends due to the distress I have caused them. Everything in life is for a purpose and my prayer is that my humiliation will illustrate that in our democracy, nobody, no matter how highly placed, will be above the law. As I look up from the ground following my fall from grace, I solemnly ask for forgiveness.”

He pleaded guilty upon arraignment and was convicted. About 25 lawyers who were present in court on that day pleaded in allocutus. In convicting the convict, the court held thus: “Judicial notice is taken that many Nigerians are sympathetic to the convict regard being had to the humiliation he has suffered as a result of his own asts. But it is pertinent that those advocating for forgiveness ought to know that the offence committed by the convict are not compoundable ones. The public may decide to forgive him but the law must take its course.”

With these words, the court convicted him and sentenced him to a term of years with an option of fine, which option he promptly exercised. This judgement made Salisu Buhari sink into the abyss of political oblivion, Subsequently, the then President of Nigeria, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo exercised the power of prerogative of mercy in his favour, but I dare saythat the exercise of the power of prerogative of mercy in his favour did not save Salisu Buhari from the hara-kiri that befell him as a result of his overzealousness. It is to be noted that since after this incident, Salisu Buhari went under, both socially and politically.

Obi Okongwu Vs. State, Suit No. FCAlE/112/83 delivered f _ on Thursday DECEMBER 12, 1986:
The applicant was the then solicitor-general of old Anambra State. In the course of defending a matter before Justice Araka, then Chief Judge of old Anambra State, he was cited for contempt of court in facie curiae (in the face of the court), which led to his conviction and sentence to 21 days imprisonment. On that same day, Chief Jim Nwobodo, then governor of old Anambra State, issued two instruments – Instrument of Remission and Instrument of Pardon – pursuant to the prevalent section of the 1979 Constitution and he (Okongwu) was allowed to go home. Subsequently, he filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence. At the hearing of the appeal, the Court of Appeal took the matter suo motu as to whether the appeal was competent having regard to the fact that the appellant had been pardoned and invited counsel to both the appellant and the respondent to address it on that point.

After the addresses of counsel on both sides, the Court of Appeal held Coram Ogundare, JCA (as he then was), Akpata JCA (as he then was) and Aseme JCA, as he then was (dissenting) as follows: The power of the state to pardon or remit sentences extends to sentences for criminal contempt.

The common law position is that a free pardon restores the good name of the person granted such a pardon, removes the consequences of the conviction that necessitated the pardon and leaves his character unaffected.

A pardon does not raise the inference that the person pardoned had not in fact committed the crime for which the pardon was granted. A pardon stops with the punishment and the consequences attaching thereto but does not wipe out the fact of conviction. (Italics mine)

A pardon is different from purgation. While purgation affirms the verdict and at the same time disaffirms by allowing the convict to purge the offence which the law has found and established, a pardon does not cleanse one of the conviction. (Italics mine)

Since section 192 (l)(a) (of the Constitution) is silent on the effect of a free pardon granted under the section, one has to look into the common law to determine what effect has the free pardon granted on an appellant’s conviction and sentence.

A pardon is usually granted where a convict (a) has exhausted all his legal rights of appeal; or (b) has no intention of exercising such rights; or (c) where he is wrong­ fully convicted and is afterwards pardoned upon the ground of his innocence.

• Continued from penultimate week

By Louis N. Orji
Daily Sun News