🧾 Introduction

In a landmark judgment delivered in December 2025, the Supreme Court of Nigeria (the “Apex Court”) delivered a consequential ruling in Sanda v. Commissioner of Police, arising from a culpable homicide conviction first handed down by the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in 2020 and affirmed by the Court of Appeal in 2020. This appeal engaged head-on the controversial exercise of presidential prerogative of mercy, specifically, a pardon granted by the President during the pendency of the Supreme Court appeal, and whether such exercise could curtail the jurisdiction of the Court or affect its ability to hear the appeal.

‍

⚖ Factual and Procedural Background

● Conviction & Sentence:

In January 2020, Maryam Sanda was convicted of culpable homicide by the FCT High Court for stabbing her husband to death and sentenced to death by hanging.

‍
● Appeal:

The Court of Appeal affirmed both conviction and sentence in December 2020, prompting Sanda to file an appeal to the Supreme Court.

‍
● Presidential Pardon Controversy:

In October 2025, President Bola Tinubu granted Sanda and others a controversial pardon and commuted her death sentence to 12 years’ imprisonment on compassionate grounds (including good conduct and interests of children). However, this exercise occurred while Sanda’s appeal was pending before the Supreme Court.

‍
🧠 Issues for Determination

The Supreme Court identified and resolved several pivotal legal questions:
1. Does the Presidential prerogative of mercy, exercised while an appeal is pending in respect of a capital offence, oust the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear and determine that appeal?

‍
📜 Major Judicial Reasoning and Holdings

📍 1. Supreme Court Retains Jurisdiction Despite Presidential Pardon Perhaps the most significant dimension of this case lies in the Apex Court’s robust reaffirmation of the independence of judicial review and delineation of constitutional boundaries between the judicial and executive branches:

‍
● Jurisdiction is Not Extinguished by Pardon:

The Supreme Court held that a pardon issued during the pendency of an appeal in a capital offence does not extinguish or divest the Court’s jurisdiction. Section 233(2)(d) of the Constitution clearly vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Supreme Court to hear appeals involving death sentences, and this cannot be displaced by executive action.

‍
● Separation of Powers:

The Court emphasized that allowing the executive pardon to truncate or nullify the appellate process in such cases would undermine the separation of powers entrenched in the Constitution. The judiciary must be permitted to discharge its duties independent of executive interference.

‍
📍 2. Applicability of Presidential Mercy in Criminal Appeals
● Timing Matters: The Court made it clear that while the President’s prerogative of mercy under Section 175 of the Constitution is broad, its exercise during the pendency of an appeal in a capital offence may be inappropriate and cannot impede the Court’s constitutional role.

‍
● Judicial Process Must Be Respected: The Apex Court noted that mercy actions should ideally wait until appellate proceedings are fully determined to avoid confusion and constitutional conflict.

‍
📍 3. Affirmation of Conviction and Sentence
● On the substantive appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with both the Court of Appeal and trial court that the prosecution discharged its burden to prove culpable homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

‍
● The majority (4-1) dismissed Sanda’s appeal, reinforcing the settled standards of criminal proof required in capital cases.

✒ Why This Ruling Matters

Sanda v. Commissioner of Police (2025) is more than a criminal appeal. It is a constitutional testament to the sanctity of judicial process and a vivid rejection of any attempt, however well-intended, to short-circuit justice through executive fiat. For Nigerian lawyers and jurists, this case will be cited for years as a cornerstone in the jurisprudence of executive power, appellate jurisdiction, and constitutional democracy.

‍