The Supreme Court of Nigeria has overruled the Federal Government’s intervention and affirmed the death sentence handed to Maryam Sanda, the daughter-in-law of the former Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), for the culpable homicide of her husband, Bilyamin Bello, in 2017.

Background of the Case

• Maryam Sanda was convicted in January 2020 by an Abuja High Court for the murder of her husband, Bilyamin Bello. The court had found her guilty of stabbing him to death at their residence in Abuja in 2017, resulting in her death sentence by hanging.
• Although Sanda had already spent about six years and eight months in the Suleja prison, her sentence was reduced by President Bola Tinubu to 12 years in prison. This move came under the exercise of executive clemency, which the Attorney General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, explained as being granted on compassionate grounds, primarily in the interest of their children.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

On Friday, December 12, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a split judgment of four to one, restated the death sentence handed to Maryam Sanda. The Court resolved that all the legal issues raised by Sanda in her appeal lacked merit, dismissing her appeal and upholding the sentence of death by hanging.

• Lead judgment: Justice Moore Adumein delivered the lead verdict, which emphasized that the prosecution had proven Maryam Sanda’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, which had earlier confirmed the death sentence.
• Presidential Pardon Overturned: In its ruling, the Supreme Court also declared that it was incorrect for President Tinubu to exercise executive clemency in this case, as the matter was still under judicial review. The Court stated that it was improper for the executive arm of the government to grant a pardon in a case of culpable homicide when an appeal was pending.

Key Points in the Judgment

• Maryam Sanda’s Guilt: The Supreme Court emphasized that the evidence against her was irrefutable and upheld the decision of the lower courts.
• Executive Power and Pardon: The ruling also touched on the limits of presidential powers, asserting that the president could not intervene in a criminal matter where judicial proceedings were still ongoing, particularly in a case as serious as culpable homicide.

Public Reaction

The judgment has sparked significant public attention, given the controversial nature of the case, with many debating the balance between executive clemency and judicial finality. Critics of the presidential pardon argue that it undermines the judicial system while those supporting Sanda’s clemency point to the humanitarian considerations and her apparent remorse for the crime.

---

Summary

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the death sentence for Maryam Sanda sends a strong message about the boundaries of presidential power and the finality of judicial decisions in criminal cases. Despite the presidential intervention, the apex court has reaffirmed the legal verdict, asserting the seriousness of the crime and the need for due process in the justice system.

This ruling has significant implications for the relationship between the judiciary and the executive, and it further cements Sanda’s fate as she remains convicted for the 2017 killing of her husband.