The Supreme Court has nullified President Bola Tinubu’s decision to commute Maryam Sanda’s death sentence, ruling that the executive overstepped its authority by granting a pardon while her appeal was still pending in court.

In a judgment issued on Friday, the apex court, in a 4-1 split decision, upheld the death sentence originally imposed on Sanda by the Federal Capital Territory High Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal. Sanda was convicted in 2020 of murdering her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, during a domestic altercation in their Abuja home.

The court rejected her appeal, stating that the prosecution had proved culpable homicide beyond reasonable doubt. Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Moore Adumein affirmed that the Court of Appeal was correct in endorsing the trial court’s decision. He also emphasized that the presidential intervention was inappropriate given the case's status.

Justice Adumein stated: “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.”

Sanda’s sentence had been reduced to 12 years’ imprisonment in October after President Tinubu approved a revised clemency list. This decision followed a review process initially listing 175 names, but several were excluded due to what the Presidency described as the “nature of their crime.”

At that time, Presidential Adviser Bayo Onanuga explained that the commutation was “based on compassionate grounds for the best interest of the children and good conduct,” and noted that she had demonstrated “remorsefulness.”

The initial decision sparked public debate and objections from Bello’s family. After consultations with the Council of State and considering “public opinion,” the list was amended, removing several individuals convicted of crimes such as kidnapping, drug offenses, and arms dealing.

The Supreme Court’s ruling effectively reverses the President’s intervention.

Sanda has spent about six years in custody, and the earlier commuted sentence would have left her with roughly six more years to serve. With Friday’s judgment, the death penalty is reinstated.

This case also highlights ongoing scrutiny of the President’s authority under Section 175 of the Constitution, which permits pardons, clemency, or sentence commutations. The court’s decision indicates that such powers cannot be exercised in cases still under judicial review.