On October 10, 2025, Nigeria’s President Bola Tinubu granted pardons to 175 convicted individuals, a move that has ignited fierce debate and drawn sharp criticism from leading human rights organizations. Among those granted clemency were some of the country’s most notable historical and political figures, including Herbert Macaulay, Ken Saro Wiwa, and Major-General Mamman Vatsa (retd). However, the decision’s ripple effects have extended far beyond the headlines, raising urgent questions about justice, the rule of law, and the rights of victims.
According to PUNCH Online, the presidential pardons were not limited to political prisoners or those with symbolic significance. The list, released to the public, also included individuals convicted of drug offenses and other serious crimes. Perhaps most controversially, it featured Maryam Sanda, who was convicted in 2020 for the killing of her husband, Bilyaminu Bello. The inclusion of such names has stoked public outrage and prompted human rights advocates to speak out.
Amnesty International Nigeria wasted no time in voicing its concerns. In a strongly worded statement released on October 14, 2025, Isa Sanusi, the organization’s country director, condemned the pardons as a blow to the nation’s commitment to justice and accountability. “We are deeply concerned by the clemency and pardons granted by the government of President Bola Tinubu to some persons convicted of human rights crimes, as the pardons for these crimes prevent reparations for victims,” Sanusi said, as reported by PUNCH Online. He went on to argue that the process seemed to prioritize those responsible for grave offenses over the rights and needs of their victims.
For many Nigerians, the timing and scope of the pardons have been especially troubling. The government’s actions, Amnesty International warned, risk undermining the rule of law and entrenching a culture of impunity. “The way and manner Nigerian authorities carried out the exercise seemed to prioritise the perpetrators instead of access to justice and effective remedies for the victims and their families,” Sanusi continued. Amnesty’s statement called on President Tinubu to reconsider the pardons for individuals convicted of human rights crimes and to ensure that the rights of victims and their families are not forgotten in the process.
“The actions of the government have the potential of undermining the rule of law, preventing the emergence of the truth, the determination of guilt or innocence by a court and reparations for victims, as well as entrenching impunity for human rights crimes,” Sanusi stated. “President Bola Tinubu should reconsider his government’s pardons for those convicted of human rights crimes and uphold and ensure the rights of the victims and their families.”
The debate in Nigeria is unfolding against a broader international backdrop, where questions of justice, accountability, and reparations for victims remain central to global human rights discourse. In a striking contrast to the events in Nigeria, the State of Kuwait has moved in the opposite direction, strengthening its legal framework to combat impunity and protect victims’ rights.
On October 14, 2025, the Kuwaiti Cabinet, during its weekly session, approved two landmark bills designed to bolster the country’s commitment to international justice and human dignity. As reported by The Times Kuwait and confirmed by the Kuwait News Agency (KUNA), these bills are now pending submission to His Highness the Amir Sheikh Mishal Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah for final approval.
One of the bills focuses squarely on combating the world’s most egregious crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. According to Minister of Justice Nasser Al-Sumait, the legislation is designed to ensure that “no impunity for the perpetrators” of these grave offenses is tolerated. This bill reflects Kuwait’s determination to align itself with international norms and legal standards, sending a clear message that those responsible for the gravest violations of human rights will be held accountable.
The second bill addresses the rights of missing persons and their families, a deeply personal issue for Kuwait given its own history during the 1990 Iraqi invasion. The legislation draws inspiration from United Nations Security Council Resolution 2474 of 2019, which calls for the protection and compensation of the missing and their loved ones. It affirms the necessity to determine the fate of the missing and to provide compensation to their next of kin, in line with international agreements. Minister Al-Sumait praised the efforts of the national permanent commission of international humanitarian law, which worked in concert with other state authorities to draft these bills.
“The two bills affirm the State of Kuwait’s keenness on safeguarding the human dignity, enforcing justice, sovereignty of the law, according to the sagacious leadership’s vision,” Al-Sumait declared, as reported by The Times Kuwait. The minister’s remarks underscore Kuwait’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that victims and their families are not left behind.
For observers, the juxtaposition of Nigeria’s controversial pardons and Kuwait’s legislative initiatives offers a stark illustration of the choices governments face when it comes to justice and human rights. In Nigeria, critics argue that the government’s actions risk eroding faith in the legal system and sending the wrong message to both victims and perpetrators. In Kuwait, by contrast, the government is moving to enshrine protections for victims and to hold perpetrators of the gravest crimes to account.
What’s at stake in these debates is not just the fate of a handful of individuals or the reputations of political leaders. At the heart of the matter is a fundamental question: How should societies balance the demands of justice, mercy, and accountability? For victims and their families, the answer is often painfully clear. Justice delayed—or denied—can feel like a second wound, compounding the trauma of the original crime. For those who advocate for clemency or reconciliation, the calculus may be more complicated, involving considerations of national healing, political stability, or historical redress.
Yet, as Amnesty International’s Isa Sanusi warned in his statement, failing to prioritize the rights of victims and the integrity of the judicial process risks entrenching a culture of impunity. As Kuwait’s new bills demonstrate, it is possible for governments to act decisively in defense of human dignity and the rule of law, even in the face of difficult historical legacies.
As both nations move forward, their choices will be closely watched by advocates, legal experts, and ordinary citizens alike. The coming months may reveal whether Nigeria’s leadership will heed calls to reconsider its controversial pardons, and whether Kuwait’s legislative reforms will serve as a model for others grappling with the aftermath of conflict and injustice. For now, the contrast between the two countries stands as a powerful reminder that the pursuit of justice—however imperfect—remains at the core of any society’s claim to legitimacy and moral authority.
