By Charles Pemu 
ABUJA—Former presidential candidate and prominent activist, Omoyele Sowore, has launched a scathing attack on President Bola Tinubu’s recent exercise of the prerogative of mercy, condemning the selective nature of the pardons while the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, remains in custody.
Sowore took to his social media channels to articulate his displeasure, accusing the Tinubu administration of “glaring hypocrisy” for prioritizing the clemency of convicted criminals and corrupt officials over the freedom of a self-determination advocate.
The activist’s criticism centered on the expansive list of 175 beneficiaries approved by the National Council of State, which he argued demonstrated misplaced priorities. Sowore pointed out that the pardoned individuals included highly controversial figures such as:
- A cocaine trafficker who was serving a life sentence.
- Farouk Lawan, the former federal lawmaker convicted for bribery caught on video.
- The late alleged coup plotter, Maj.-Gen. Mamman Vatsa.
- The nationalist, Herbert Macaulay, as well as other “known fraudsters and corrupt politicians.”
In a forceful contrast, Sowore questioned the rationale behind the government’s unwavering refusal to release Nnamdi Kanu, who has been held for years despite, according to the activist, “multiple court orders mandating his freedom.”
“Yet, in all of this, Tinubu refuses to even consider the release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, who has been unjustly detained for years,” Sowore wrote. “It is a glaring hypocrisy, criminals and political thieves are forgiven, celebrated, and rehabilitated while a man demanding self-determination and justice remains behind bars and tossed around in courts with the pretence that somehow it is about law.”
Sowore’s statement immediately injected a contentious political dimension into the clemency exercise, shifting the public focus from the historic pardons granted to figures like Macaulay and Vatsa towards the contentious issue of political detainees and the perceived uneven application of justice by the Presidency. The activist’s condemnation challenges the administration to clarify the criteria used by the Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy, especially regarding individuals facing charges related to treasonable felony and national security.