Supreme Court upholds Maryam Sanda’s death sentence

The Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction of Maryam Sanda, who was earlier sentenced to death for murder of her husband. Sanda, an Abuja-based young woman, was among the list of persons who in October benefitted from the final list of convicts whose sentences were reduced by President Bola Tinubu under the presidential prerogative of […]

The Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction of Maryam Sanda, who was earlier sentenced to death for murder of her husband.

Sanda, an Abuja-based young woman, was among the list of persons who in October benefitted from the final list of convicts whose sentences were reduced by President Bola Tinubu under the presidential prerogative of mercy. Hers was reduced to 12 years imprisonment.

However, the Supreme Court, in a split decision of four-to-one on Friday, affirmed the death sentence handed Sanda by the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which upheld the decision of a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sentencing her to death by hanging.

In the lead judgement, Justice Moore Adumein held that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt as required, adding that the Court of Appeal was right to have affirmed the judgement of the trial court.

• Tinubu absent as Obasanjo makes first Aso Rock trip since his inauguration
• Customs officers’ wives begin tree planting initiative

Justice Adumein held that 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.

The latest verdict overrides the pardon granted by the president after her family pleaded for the pardon.

Sanda was arrested by the police for stabbing her husband, Bilyamniu Bello, an adopted son of a former Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) national chairman, Haliru Bello, and covering up the evidence in 2017.

In granting the pardon, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) had announced that she showed remorse, having been held for over six years at the Correctional Centre in Suleja, Niger State.

Following public outcry that greeted the exercise, which was extended to 10 beneficiaries, Fagbemi clarified that the process was rigorous.

“This verification process is part of the standard protocol and reflects government’s commitment to transparency and due diligence.

“The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice appreciates the public’s vigilance and constructive feedback, which continue to strengthen institutional integrity. Public engagement is always welcome, as it demonstrates that Nigerians care deeply about justice and good governance,” he said.

Before the conviction by an FCT High Court on January 27, Justice Yusuf Halilu discharged and acquitted Sanda’s mother, Maimuna Aliyu, brother, Aliyu Sanda and house-help, Sadiya Umar after they pleaded no-case-submission to the allegation of abetting the concealment of evidence.

 

Lawyers differ on execution of death sentence, pardon

Lawyers have expressed divergent views on the implication of the apex court’s verdict on the subsisting presidential pardon for the convict and the likelihood that the death sentence may no longer be executed because of it.

A former Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice in Ekiti State, Dayo Akinlaja (SAN), said he would naturally advocate that a pardon should not be granted when a matter is on appeal as they may erode the integrity of the judicial system and may smack of an attempt to emasculate the judicial organ.

“However, from a literal standpoint of the constitutional provision, there is nothing wrong with the pardon in this case. In section 175 of the constitution under which the president acted, pardon as a form of prerogative of mercy is tied to existence of offence or conviction for offence.

“In my respectful view, it means that pardon may be granted before or after conviction. In the case under reference, there was a conviction which predicated the pardon granted. On the pains of emphasis, there is no stipulation in the constitution that a pardon cannot be granted when a case is subject to appeal.

“My view is that immediately after the pardon had been granted, the appeal before the Supreme Court had become otiose and should have been put paid to immediately.

“In essence, the judgement of the Supreme Court is academic. It is important to bear in mind that the executive arm of government is responsible for the implementation of court judgements.

“That being so, the death sentence affirmed by the Supreme Court will not be executed. At the maximum, the president may simply reiterate the pardon. Put in plain terms, the pardon granted by the president is not rendered null and void by the decision of the Supreme Court. And if the apex court says so in its judgement, my humble position would be that the pronouncement is indefensible in the face of the relevant provisions of the constitution,” he said.

However, E.M.D. Umukoro (Esq) maintained that the verdict coming after the speedy grant of presidential pardon was an embarrassment to Nigeria and “a ridicule of the progress.”

“It paints the executive in a bad light as an organ of the government that is reckless, having not much regard for the other organs (in this case the judiciary), thereby sending a wrong signal and an example to citizens and the international community,” he said.

He added that the pardon’s other downside was that it weakens the efforts put in the justice administration system.

On his part, a chieftain of the PDP, Mazi Dickson Iroegbu, submitted that it was morally wrong for the president’s handlers to have proposed such pardon, which caused him to misfire, adding that they should all cover their faces in shame for proposing such when a heinous crime was committed.

“On the aspect of the Supreme Court overriding that pardon, I think that is how to build an egalitarian society; that is, when you commit an offence, no matter how highly placed you are, you should face the law.

“I commend the Supreme Court and hope that the president and those around him would learn a lesson from this. There shouldn’t be any attempt to bring out the aspect of the executive powers on that.

“Constitutionally, the president has the powers, but what about the moral compass that should also be highlighted when granting pardon?

“If it was assumed that the lady didn’t commit the crime at the time of the pardon and the facts before the president, the best thing would have been for the Attorney General to discontinue the case. And it wouldn’t matter at what stage of the trial the discontinuance was done,” he submitted.

He said the judgement would afford some respite to the family.

Efforts to speak with both families were not successful.