Practice of granting amnesty to offenders by CJs unconstitutional – SAN

Practice of granting amnesty to offenders by CJs unconstitutional – SAN

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Sebastine Hon, has said that the practice of granting pardon or amnesty to offenders by state Chief Judges is unconstitutional.

According to him, the only authorities imbued with constitutional powers of pardon or amnesty are the president, after consultation with the Council of State (under section 175), or the governor of a state, acting in consultation with an advisory council of the state on prerogative of mercy, established by a law of such the state.

In a statement he issued yesterday, Hon said: “The practice of chief judges, particularly of the states, granting pardon or amnesty to offenders has been going on for quite some time now; but I make bold to say that such practice is clearly unconstitutional.

“Section 35(4) of the 1999 Constitution as amended has stipulated that anybody accused of an offence shall be arraigned in court within a reasonable time and that it is only that court that could make an order remanding such person in prison ordering his release from custody – either conditionally or unconditionally.

“Clearly, therefore, there is no pre-conviction authorisation for pardon or release from custody by any chief judge, acting in his administrative capacity.”

“In respect of state chief judges, section 270(2)(a) of the constitution has merely established the office of a state chief judge with no specific functions assigned thereto. This then means such chief judges perform functions assigned to them by their respective state high court laws and high court rules.”

Explaining further, he said even if such state laws granted powers of pardon to the state chief judges, “such laws become, by the fiat of the inconsistency rule, unconstitutional, by virtue of section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution.”

Hon stated that since such laws, being in conflict with sections 35(4), 175 and 212, respectively, of the 1999 Constitution, were null and void to the extent of their inconsistency, under and by virtue of section 1(3) of the constitution.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision of Attorney-General of Abia State vs. Attorney-General of the Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264 at 369, he argued that such state laws were also unconstitutional under the doctrine of covering the field – since the 1999 constitution had already covered the field on state pardon.

He said: “I wish to also observe that most states have not constituted the advisory council on prerogative of mercy, as enjoined by section 212 of the constitution, thereby leaving a lacuna which the state chief judges, out of good but unconstitutional intentions, from time to time seek to fill.

“I therefore, counsel state chief judges to halt their routine prison amnesties. Rather, the various state Houses of Assembly should enact legislation establishing the state advisory council on prerogative of mercy, to make the various state governors perform their constitutional functions in this regard.”


Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.