The Supreme Court of Nigeria on Friday reinstated the death sentence originally imposed on Maryam Sanda for the killing of her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, bringing a dramatic end to years of legal battles, public controversy, and political intervention. In a split 4–1 decision delivered by Justice Moore Adumein, the apex court dismissed Sanda’s appeal in its entirety, holding that she failed to show any error in the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeal. The justices affirmed that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and ruled that the death sentence imposed by the Federal Capital Territory High Court in January 2020 must stand, declaring that the judicial process had been correctly followed and legally sound.
The case, one of the most widely followed homicide prosecutions in Nigeria, began after the tragic events of November 2017 when Sanda fatally stabbed her husband during a domestic dispute at their residence in the upscale Maitama district of Abuja. According to evidence presented during the trial, the altercation escalated quickly, allegedly fuelled by marital disagreements and emotional strain. Eyewitness statements, medical reports, and forensic findings supported the prosecution’s claim that Bello died from a stab wound inflicted by Sanda, despite her repeated insistence that his death resulted from an accident. The prominence of the families involved, including Bello’s connection to a former National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, heightened public interest and intensified media scrutiny.
Following a lengthy trial, the FCT High Court convicted Sanda on January 27, 2020, finding her guilty of culpable homicide punishable by death under the laws of Nigeria. The presiding judge ruled that the evidence left no reasonable doubt that Sanda intentionally caused her husband’s death. In delivering the verdict, the court emphasised the seriousness of the crime and the need to uphold the sanctity of human life, sentencing her to death by hanging. The judgment stunned many who had followed the emotionally charged proceedings, and Sanda reportedly broke down in tears upon hearing the pronouncement.
After her conviction, Sanda was remanded at the Suleja Medium Security Custodial Centre, where she remained for about six years and eight months. During this period, her legal team continued to challenge the verdict, filing appeals that questioned the trial court’s handling of the evidence, the weight given to witness testimonies, and the application of the legal standards.
However, in 2020, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and the death sentence, agreeing that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated intent and causation. Despite these setbacks, Sanda maintained her innocence and continued to seek relief through the legal system while reportedly exhibiting what authorities described as “good behaviour” during her incarceration.
A major twist came in October 2025 when President Bola Ahmed Tinubu granted Sanda executive clemency, commuting her death sentence to 12 years’ imprisonment. The announcement, published in an official gazette, cited compassionate grounds, her record of good conduct, and the need to protect the welfare of her young children. The decision generated intense nationwide debate, with supporters arguing that the President was exercising his constitutional powers in a humane and empathetic manner, while critics accused the Executive of undermining judicial authority and exploiting mercy powers for political considerations.
Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), defended the President’s action, insisting that Sanda’s inclusion in the clemency list followed extensive reviews of her prison behaviour, psychological assessments, and her children’s circumstances. Fagbemi argued that the prerogative of mercy exists precisely to address exceptional humanitarian cases and that the decision was taken in the best interest of the children left behind. He described Sanda as a model inmate who demonstrated remorse and had significantly transformed during her time in custody, emphasising that her case met the threshold for compassionate intervention.
Despite these explanations, the clemency continued to divide opinion. The Bello family and several legal experts questioned the timing and legitimacy of the presidential action, noting that Sanda’s appeal was still pending before the Supreme Court at the time the pardon was issued. Critics argued that granting clemency while the judicial process was ongoing created a constitutional conflict, blurred the separation of powers, and risked setting a precedent in which Executive actions could effectively pre-empt the courts in serious criminal matters. Human rights groups were also split, with some supporting clemency as part of broader criminal justice reform, while others insisted that cases involving violent homicide should not be subject to political discretion.
The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday directly addressed these concerns, faulting the Executive for intervening before judicial processes were concluded. In the lead judgment, Justice Adumein stated that although the Constitution empowers the President to grant clemency, such powers must be exercised with respect for ongoing legal proceedings, especially in capital cases. The court held that it was inappropriate for the Executive to commute a death sentence in a homicide case when the appeal against the conviction had not yet been decided, noting that the action disrupted the constitutional balance of powers and undermined the authority of the judiciary.
In reaffirming the conviction, the Supreme Court revisited the evidence presented during the trial and found no justification to overturn the verdict. The justices agreed that the forensic evidence, witness accounts, and circumstantial details collectively pointed to Sanda’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court rejected her arguments on procedural irregularities and evidential gaps, ruling that the lower courts had properly evaluated the facts and applied the relevant laws. The judgment stressed the importance of judicial consistency and the need to uphold the integrity of criminal justice outcomes, particularly in cases where the facts had been exhaustively reviewed by multiple courts.
With the Supreme Court’s ruling, the original death sentence imposed on Maryam Sanda has been fully restored, effectively nullifying the presidential clemency granted two months earlier.