The Supreme Court has nullified the presidential pardon granted to Abuja-based housewife, Maryam Sanda, and reaffirmed her death sentence for the murder of her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, son of a former Chairman of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP).
An Abuja High Court had, on January 27, 2020, sentenced her to death by hanging after she was found guilty of stabbing her husband, Bilyamin Bello, to death at their Abuja residence in 2017.
Although she had already spent about six years and eight months at Suleja Prison, President Bola Tinubu, in the exercise of his executive powers, reduced her sentence to 12 years.
The court held that the trial judge was right in his verdict, adding that the offence of culpable homicide committed by the appellant was punishable by death under Section 221 of the Penal Code.
It noted that there was evidence that the appellant murdered her husband during a fight that ensued after she saw a nude picture of a girl on his phone.
The conviction and sentence were later upheld by the Court of Appeal, Abuja.
President Bola Tinubu had, on compassionate grounds, commuted Sanda’s death sentence to 12 years’ imprisonment.
However, in a judgment delivered on Friday, the Supreme Court, in a split decision of four to one, set aside the pardon and upheld the death sentence earlier affirmed by the appellate court.
The apex court dismissed Sanda’s appeal in its entirety, holding that it lacked merit and resolving all issues raised against her conviction.
In the lead judgment, Justice Moore Adumein ruled that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the Court of Appeal was correct in affirming the trial court’s findings.
Justice Adumein further held that it was improper for the Executive to exercise its constitutional power of pardon in a case of culpable homicide while an appeal was still pending before the courts.
The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, explained that her inclusion in the recent presidential pardon was based on “compassionate grounds and in the best interest of the children,” citing qualities such as “good conduct, embracing a new lifestyle, serving as a model to prisoners, and remorsefulness.”
It faulted the trial judge for failing to rule on the preliminary objection before delivering final judgment in the matter.
The appellate court invoked its powers under Section 6(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and dismissed Maryam’s pending preliminary objection for lack of merit.
