By Evans Ufeli Esq
The exercise of the prerogative of mercy in the case of Sunday Jackson by Governor Fintitri of Adamawa State can be read as an act that transcends the letter of the law and touches the loftier domain of moral imagination. Law, stern and salutary, is the anchor of society; mercy, delicate and luminous, is the balm that humanizes its rigor. When a governor, vested with the constitutional power to temper punishment with pardoning grace, elects to intervene where the courts have declined to endorse a plea of self-defence, that intervention can perform a salutary function if it is guided by principle, compassion, and prudence.
At its best, clemency acknowledges a truth that the adversarial courtroom cannot always apprehend: human life is layered, contexts are complex, and justice is not merely the mechanical application of precedents. A conviction reached within the legal crucible may well be technically sound yet morally incomplete, failing to capture mitigating circumstances, the weight of trauma, or the contortions of conscience that led to a tragic outcome. The prerogative of mercy, exercised responsibly, offers a safety valve for the polity; a way to correct, to soften, and to restore where the blunt instruments of adjudication produce results at odds with the community’s sense of equity.
Moreover, mercy performed by the executive can be an instrument of societal healing. In communities frayed by violence, rigid retribution often deepens wounds rather than closing them. A circumspect act of clemency can facilitate reconciliation between rival factions, empower restorative processes, and allow a wronged social fabric to begin mending. It signals that the state is not merely an apparatus of punishment but also a steward of rehabilitation and peace. For those who believe in redemption, mercy is not an affront to justice but its complement; a recognition that people can change and that punishment ought to include the possibility of renewal.
That said, the exercise of this power must not be capricious. The salutary purposes of mercy are realized only when its deployment is transparent, reasoned, and mindful of the rule of law. A governor’s decision to remit a sentence should be accompanied by lucid justification: an explanation of why the strictures of conviction could justly yield to considerations of proportionality, humanitarian grounds, or evidentiary nuance. Such clarity reassures the public that mercy is not the spoils of favoritism but the outcome of deliberate statecraft responsive to both law and conscience.
It is also important to acknowledge the dignity of victims and the legitimate expectation that the state will protect society. Mercy without accountability risks eroding public confidence. Hence the wisest acts of clemency are those that marry compassion with safeguards; conditions that promote rehabilitation, reparations where appropriate, and community engagement that brings victims’ voices into the process. This balanced approach ensures that mercy serves the common good rather than dissolved into impunity.
Read Also;
SOVEREIGNTY UNDER FIRE: LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF U.S. AIRSTRIKES IN NIGERIA
Finally, the symbolic value of a merciful act can be profound. When a governor, mindful of the frailties and complexities of human existence, extends clemency, the gesture can reinforce a civic culture that prizes humility over hubris, restoration over mere retribution. It is a reminder that authority is not only the power to punish but also the capacity to forgive thoughtfully and to steward the moral life of the polity.
In summary, Governor Fintitri’s prerogative of mercy in the case of Sunday Jackson can be defended as an expression of humane governance; an embodiment of the principle that justice and mercy are not adversaries but allies. When exercised with transparency, restraint, and an eye toward reconciliation, clemency dignifies both the giver and the recipient, and it reaffirms the hope that law, tempered by compassion, can better serve the fullness of human needs.
