Post by AOJ LAW LOUNGE (@aojlawlounge)

"Hon. Farouk Lawan

And, when I say qualified, I’m not referring to educational qualifications, but the qualification of a person such as Hon. Farouk Lawan, who was convicted by the FCT High Court in 2021 for receiving a $500,000 bribe out of a $3 million solicitation, to remove Zenon Petroleum from the list of firms allegedly indicted for fuel subsidy. The Supreme Court eventually upheld Lawan’s 5 year sentence. Having served his prison sentence, Lawan was released in October 2024. In October 2025, he received a pardon from President Bola Tinubu, GCFR. By virtue of Section 175(1) of the Constitution, the President can grant such pardon – see Falae v Obasanjo & Ors (No. 2) (1999) LPELR-6585 (CA) on the main types of pardon – 1) a free/full pardon that is without conditions; 2) a pardon that is subject to conditions and 3) a commutation of sentence.

Lawan is said to want to contest and reclaim his former House of Representatives seat representing Bagwai/Shanono Federal constituency, Kano. We must therefore, assume that he was granted a free pardon under Section 175(1)(a), not subject to any conditions, in which case Section 66(1)(d) of the Constitution which bars a person convicted of an offence involving dishonesty from running for an election within a period of less than 10 years before the date of an election to a legislative house, would be inapplicable to Lawan.

In Falae v Obasanjo (No. 2) (Supra), the Court of Appeal held: “A pardon is an act of grace by the appropriate authority which mitigates or obliterates the punishment the law demands for the offence, and restores the rights and privileges forfeited on account of the offence….The effect of a pardon is to make the offender a new man (novus homo), to acquit him of all corporate penalties and forfeitures annexed to the offence pardoned”. In FRN v Achida & Anor (2018) LPELR-46065(CA), the Court of Appeal defined Pardon inter alia as: “….the act of officially nullifying punishment, or other legal consequences of a crime”. This means that, ‘de jure’ (by law), Lawan appears to be unencumbered and free to run, as President Tinubu’s pardon has not only made him a new man, it appears to have obliterated and nullified the 10 year impediment of Section 66(1)(d) of the Constitution in relation to him. But, ‘de facto’, Lawan was convicted of bribery/corruption, and the pardon cannot wipe away this reality.

2) Senator Jolly Nyame

Contrastingly, in a recent Federal High Court (FHC) case in the Jalingo Judicial Division – FHC/JAL/CS/6/2026, Senator Jolly Nyame who had been convicted on corruption charges relating to misappropriation of public funds in 2018, was granted a pardon by late President Muhammadu Buhari in 2022 under Section 175(1) of the Constitution, on age and health grounds and thereafter, released from prison. The FHC held that Nyame’s pardon was Presidential clemency based on health grounds and not a full pardon, thereby rendering him ineligible to run for the Taraba North Senatorial seat until 2028, thereby insisting that the 10-year post-conviction period under Section 66(1)(d) of the Constitution must be allowed to elapse; that Nyame’s pardon didn’t obliterate the legal consequences of his crime – see FRN v Achida & Anor (Supra).

Is the FHC decision confusing the grounds for Nyame’s pardon, with a pardon that is subject to conditions? See Falae v Obasanjo (No. 2) (Supra). With respect, one can argue that they aren’t the same. There are always grounds for exercising the prerogative of mercy in favour of a pardonee, such as the convict turning their life around in prison by learning a trade or getting an education, good behaviour, terminal illness, old age etc. A pardon that is subject to conditions, on the other hand, is one in which such pardon may require restitution or repayment of misappropriated funds, or other terms attached thereto.

Can Nyame’s case be distinguished from Lawan’s, because Lawan had completed his sentence before he was pardoned, while Nyame was pardoned before he completed his sentence? Or is it that, no matter the grounds for exercising the prerogative of mercy, or whether the sentence is completed or not, once it’s a free/full pardon, the legal consequences are obliterated, in which case the FHC decision in Nyame’s case may easily be reversed on appeal? Nevertheless, some argue that giving any person that has been adjudged to be dishonest the ticket of APC whose campaign mantra is supposedly ‘fight against corruption’, shows hypocrisy and insincerity, and it should be discouraged."

Of Homeland Security, Presidential Pardon and 2027 Elections – THISDAYLIVE https://www.thisdaylive.com/2026/05/18/of-homeland-security-presidential-pardon-and-2027-elections/

0 likes · 0 comments · 0 shares