Last week, President Bola Tinubu, using his constitutional power of prerogative of mercy, granted pardons to 175 Nigerians convicted of various crimes, including drug trafficking, murder, armed robbery, and illegal mining, with some serving death sentences. While such an act would normally attract praise, it has instead sparked widespread criticism. Critics have particularly condemned the pardon of drug traffickers and murderers who have served barely two years, arguing that this could encourage others to believe they might face only light punishment and eventual clemency. Some see the move as contradictory to the government’s stated fight against drug trafficking, suggesting the administration’s anti-drug stance may be more performative than real. Others fear the international community will view Nigeria as a safe haven for drug traffickers. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, ex-Kaduna Governor Nasir el-Rufai, civil society groups, and political parties have condemned the action, warning of its potential consequences. The African Democratic Congress (ADC), through its interim national publicity secretary Bolaji Abdullahi, stated that the pardon undermines Nigeria’s anti-drug efforts, encourages crime, and damages the country’s global image. They described the pardon as an abuse of the prerogative of mercy, particularly since most convicts had only served two years. The party criticized the pardon as a mockery of the efforts of National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) officials and other security officers who risk their lives prosecuting drug offenders. They argued that clemency is meant to correct injustices or reward rehabilitated convicts, not to release those serving long sentences for grave crimes. The ADC also highlighted Nigeria’s ongoing struggle with drug use, especially among youth, noting the country remains a major transit point for illicit drugs. Pardoning such convicts, they argued, undermines the fight against narcotics and disrespects the sacrifices of law enforcement officers. Regarding international implications, the party said the pardons could weaken Nigeria’s standing with global partners and create the impression that the country is lenient toward drug traffickers. They warned that such actions risk normalizing serious crimes and eroding moral standards. Atiku described the pardons as reckless, emboldening criminality and undermining the justice system. He emphasized that presidential clemency should temper justice with mercy, not diminish it, and criticized the pardon of convicts involved in drug trafficking, kidnapping, murder, and corruption as sending a dangerous signal both domestically and internationally. He noted that nearly 30 percent of those pardoned were drug offenders, raising concerns about the impact on youth and Nigeria’s global reputation. Atiku also highlighted the irony of the pardon coming from a president with unresolved issues related to past drug investigations. The PDP presidential candidate argued that a pardon should symbolize moral reform, not mock the justice system, demoralize law enforcement, or harm victims. He stressed that conflating clemency with complicity erodes leadership’s moral authority and encourages lawlessness. El-Rufai framed the action less as compassion and more as a reunion of like-minded individuals, pointing to past drug-related allegations against the president. Even presidential aides criticized the move. Josef Onoh, Special Adviser on Policy Communication in the South East, urged Tinubu to revoke the pardon, especially for Maryam Sanda, convicted of murdering her husband, arguing that it was morally wrong, violated justice, and could damage Nigeria’s international reputation. He stated the decision contradicts the rule of law, perpetuates injustice, undermines deterrence, and signals moral abdication by normalizing harm to society’s vulnerable members. Onoh warned the pardons risk portraying Nigeria as a haven for impunity, deterring investment, and undermining credibility with international bodies like the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.