In a landmark ruling that asserts judicial primacy, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has reinstated the death sentence for Maryam Sanda, convicted of killing her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, in a domestic dispute. The court’s decision serves as a sharp rebuke of President Bola Tinubu’s grant of clemency while her final appeal was pending, reigniting a national debate on the boundaries of executive power.
A five-member panel of the apex court delivered a four-to-one split decision on Friday, dismissing Sanda’s appeal and affirming the guilty verdict for culpable homicide punishable by death. Justice Moore Adumein, reading the lead judgment, held that the prosecution had established the charge beyond reasonable doubt, describing the evidence as “overwhelming.”
Crucially, the court declared President Tinubu’s intervention—which had commuted her sentence to 12 years’ imprisonment—as “inappropriate” and “inconsistent with the administration of justice.”
“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,” Justice Adumein ruled.
The case traces back to November 5, 2017, when a violent altercation unfolded at the couple’s residence in Abuja’s Maitama district. Sanda, then 29, allegedly stabbed Bilyaminu Bello—a real estate developer and son of a former PDP National Chairman—multiple times in the chest and neck.
Prosecutors from the Federal Capital Territory High Court, before Justice Yusuf Halilu, presented eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence, including bloodied clothing and medical reports confirming fatal wounds from a kitchen knife. The quarrel was reportedly triggered by Sanda’s discovery of compromising messages on her husband’s phone.
While Sanda maintained the act was not premeditated, the court rejected her claim of self-defence. On January 27, 2020, she was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.
Sanda’s legal team appealed the verdict on 20 grounds, alleging procedural errors and bias. However, the Court of Appeal in Abuja dismissed the appeal on December 3, 2020, upholding the trial court’s decision.
By then, Sanda had already spent nearly seven years at the Suleja Medium Security Custodial Centre, where she gave birth to two children and was reported to have demonstrated good conduct. Her plight drew sympathy from rights groups, who highlighted the emotional toll on her family and the broader context of domestic violence in Nigeria.
Statistics from the National Bureau of Statistics indicate over 30 per cent of women aged 15 to 49 have experienced physical or sexual violence, often unreported due to stigma.
The case took a dramatic turn in October 2025. President Tinubu, exercising constitutional pardon powers under Section 175, included Sanda in a list of 175 convicts granted clemency to mark Nigeria’s 65th Independence anniversary.
The Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), defended the move, stating it was granted “on compassionate grounds and in the best interest of the children,” citing Sanda’s “good conduct, new lifestyle, model behaviour and remorsefulness.”
The decision ignited immediate public fury. Critics, including human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN), decried the inclusion of homicide convicts—who made up 13.5 per cent of the list—alongside drug offenders and illegal miners. They argued it undermined victims’ families and eroded trust in the justice system.
Bello’s relatives called it “the worst possible injustice,” while online discourse amplified calls for accountability.
In response to the outcry, the President partially reversed the decision in late October, removing drug barons and commuting Sanda’s sentence to 12 years. Yet, this adjustment could not halt the judicial process already underway at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores a critical tension in Nigeria’s constitutional framework. While Section 175 grants the President broad discretion to pardon “any person concerned with or convicted of any offence,” it does not explicitly bar its use during appeals.
Legal scholars note this power, inherited from British colonial law, is intended as an act of grace, not a substitute for the appeals process. Its premature exercise risks perceptions of executive overreach.
In Sanda’s case, the court viewed her continued legal appeal an assertion of her legal innocence as incompatible with the premise of remorse upon which the pardon was partially based, justifying the reinstatement of the original sentence.
This ruling arrives amid Nigeria’s uneasy relationship with capital punishment. As one of 55 countries retaining the death penalty for ordinary crimes, Nigeria holds over 3,000 inmates on death row the third-highest globally after Iraq and Pakistan, according to Amnesty International’s 2024 report.
Executions remain rare; a de facto moratorium has been held since 2016. However, death sentences are frequently handed down, often in homicide and drug cases. In 2023 alone, at least 246 new death sentences were imposed, a sharp rise from 77 the previous year driven by northern states enforcing Sharia law alongside southern secular courts.
Human rights advocates argue such sentences disproportionately affect the poor and marginalised, exacerbating prison overcrowding where 70 per cent of inmates are awaiting trial.
