Victim’s Relatives Condemn Presidential Pardon for Convicted Killer

The family of the late Bilyaminu Ahmed Bello has accused President Bola Tinubu of inflicting inexorable pain upon them following the recent presidential pardon granted to Maryam Sanda, who was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering her husband in 2017.

In a statement issued through Dr Bello Haliru Mohammed, the Dangaladiman Gwandu, on behalf of the deceased’s family, the relatives described the president’s decision as the worst possible injustice any family could be made to endure for a loved one. The pardon has reopened wounds that the family had begun to heal following years of legal proceedings.

Maryam Sanda was convicted and sentenced to death by a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on 27 January 2020 for the murder of her husband. Both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence in separate judgements delivered on 4 December 2020 and 27 October 2023 respectively.

The victim was killed on 19 November 2017 during a domestic quarrel. According to the family, the court’s verdict had provided some measure of closure, though they acknowledged that true closure in such circumstances may never be fully attainable.

President Tinubu announced the granting of pardons to 175 convicted persons serving sentences for various criminal offences shortly after a meeting of the Council of State. The list included individuals on death row as well as others who were pardoned posthumously.

The family stated that because of the delicately sensitive nature of the situation involving two innocent children of the deceased victim, they had deliberately refrained from making any public statement or comments despite several sponsored write-ups from the accused perpetrator’s camp containing what they described as falsehoods against the deceased, without factoring the children’s best interests.

The relatives explained that they had instead placed their trust and abiding confidence in the nation’s judicial process to run its full course and deliver justice for the deceased victim and his family. However, they noted that this latest turn of events, coming just a few years after the crime that cruelly cut short Bilyaminu’s life, has expectedly reopened their healing wounds.

The family expressed profound distress at the prospect of the convicted killer walking free without any blemish for what they characterised as a heinous crime, as if she had merely committed a trivial offence. They stated that they were compelled to issue a formal statement to humanise Bilyaminu, who they felt was being made to appear as merely another faceless anonymous individual in the long line of victims of crimes in the country, reduced to a statistical figure.

Whilst acknowledging that the grounds for Maryam Sanda’s release were reportedly predicated on appeals from her family amongst other considerations, the deceased’s relatives stressed that Bilyaminu was also their cherished family member who was profoundly loved and deeply mourned by his numerous relations, friends, and close associates following the unfortunate incident that resulted in his death eight years ago.

The family expressed deep hurt at what they interpreted as a development primarily driven by the sole motivation of appeasing the convicted person’s family members by extending mercy to a certified convicted murderer, whilst simultaneously overlooking or conveniently ignoring the corresponding inexorable pain now inflicted on the victim’s numerous grieving family members, friends, and associates.

According to the presidential spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, the pardon was granted after appeals from Maryam Sanda’s family, who argued that her release was in the best interest of her two children. The plea was also reportedly anchored on her good conduct whilst incarcerated and expressions of remorse.

The case had attracted significant public attention when it occurred in 2017, generating widespread discussions about domestic violence and the justice system’s handling of such cases. The subsequent conviction and sentencing were viewed by many as important precedents in addressing serious domestic crimes.

The family’s statement comes amidst broader public reactions to the presidential pardons, with several commentators questioning the criteria used for granting clemency in cases involving violent crimes. Some observers have called for greater transparency in the pardoning process and consideration of victims’ families in such decisions.

The deceased’s relatives stated that they take solace in their faith, expressing belief that ultimate comprehensive justice resides with their Creator, who will dispense the matter on the Day of Recompense where no one can intercede on behalf of anyone else. They beseeched divine mercy to grant their late family member eternal rest and themselves the fortitude to continue bearing his loss even in light of this latest development.

The family also prayed for divine protection and guidance for Bilyaminu’s children, expressing hope that they would be raised to be good Muslims and patriotic citizens. The statement reflected the profound sense of loss and renewed grief experienced by the relatives following the presidential pardon.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between the exercise of presidential clemency powers and the expectations of justice by victims’ families. Whilst the constitution grants the president authority to grant pardons, the decision in high-profile cases involving violent crimes often generates controversy and raises questions about balancing mercy with accountability.

The family’s public statement represents a departure from their previous approach of maintaining silence throughout the lengthy legal proceedings. Their decision to speak out following the pardon reflects the depth of their distress at what they perceive as an unjust outcome that undermines the judicial process they had trusted to deliver justice.

The Supreme Court’s affirmation of the death sentence in October 2023 had appeared to conclude the legal proceedings definitively. The presidential pardon, exercised less than two years after that final judicial determination, has therefore come as a particularly sharp blow to the family’s sense that justice had been served.

The broader implications of the pardon for Nigeria’s justice system and public confidence in legal processes remain subjects of ongoing debate. Critics argue that pardoning individuals convicted of serious violent crimes may undermine deterrence and public trust, whilst supporters of clemency note the importance of considering individual circumstances and possibilities for rehabilitation.