A former member of the House of Representatives and political analyst, Zakar Mohammed, has described the reversal of President Bola Tinubu’s pardon list as a “national embarrassment,” blaming the development on poor vetting, political interference, and a “failure of institutional due diligence” within the Presidency.

Speaking during an interview on Arise News on Thursday, Mohammed criticised the handling of the presidential pardon, saying it reflected a worrying lack of professionalism and internal checks among those advising the President.

He said, “It’s embarrassing. It’s a national embarrassment, because in history, even with the military heads of state, I don’t think this has happened.

“Mr. President has been sincere with himself, going back to his closet to examine the men who have been given responsibilities. It’s not enough giving responsibilities to people who cannot read memos of just 20 pages. I’m sure that’s where the problem is, and that process has been politicised.”

Mohammed said the original clemency list should have undergone multiple layers of review before being forwarded to President Tinubu for approval.

“Before this list gets to Mr President, there should be another layer that sieves it. Nigeria is blessed with very intelligent people who can look at it. After that, the Attorney General comes in. I respect the Attorney General, he has paid his dues, but it should be professionally embarrassing for him that this happened,” he said.

He argued that the Attorney General and the Prerogative of Mercy Committee should have ensured that the list met all legal and ethical standards before the President’s endorsement.

Citing Section 175 (1–2) of the 1999 Constitution, Mohammed insisted that the President’s powers of clemency did not include the authority to revoke or revisit pardons once granted.

He said, “Section 175 gives the President the power of clemency, not the power to revisit. If you look at Atiku Abubakar v. Federal Government (2007), the court held that whatever is said under that law is final and irrevocable, unless it was procured by deceit or force.”

He further explained that international legal precedents align with this interpretation.

“Even in the UK, in R v Foster (1740s), it was held that when the King speaks, it doesn’t reverse. The same applies in the US and Canada, where our own constitutional provision was drawn from,” he added.

The former lawmaker recalled the 2013 presidential pardon issued by former President Goodluck Jonathan to Major Hamza Al-Mustapha and Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, which attracted widespread criticism but was not rescinded due to legal constraints.

“Jonathan gave pardon to Al-Mustapha and Alamieyeseigha. There was a huge outcry, but he couldn’t revisit it because he knew the law did not permit that,” Mohammed said.

He argued that the Tinubu administration’s reversal demonstrated weak institutional checks and political interference, warning that such actions undermine confidence in government processes.

Mohammed also questioned why public outrage was sufficient to prompt the reversal of the pardon list while other critical national issues, such as the fuel subsidy removal, continued to be implemented without reconsideration.

“If the President listens, why didn’t he revisit the matter of subsidy? Everyone knows subsidy must go, but it should have been done in phases, you don’t perform three operations on a patient at once,” he argued.

He accused the government of reactive governance, saying the decision to revisit the pardon list was more about political optics than legality.

Mohammed said the pardon reversal was legally questionable and damaging to the credibility of the Presidency, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent.

He added, “It took public outcry for the revisit to happen, but even that revisit is not within the law. Once a pardon is announced, the process is completed. It’s irreversible unless obtained by deceit. The Council of State should have been fully involved.”

You may also like