Pursuant to the Republican President's pardon of the custodians of the late John Kalafatis' demise, a myriad number of lambasting remarks have been hurled against him, particularly from the realm of opposition parties.This article has therefore been ignited by the multiplicity of responses and reactions given to the not uncommon act of pardoning the trio. All dissenting minds, have argued that the pardon undermines the rule of law, the credibility of the judicial system, unjustified, and wrong. Some of the scathing remarks are riddled with emotions, passion and incense. Whilst it is human to respond and react in the manner shown above, this article seeks to argue that the issue has nothing to do with the rule of law, undermining our judicial system, unjustified or wrong. A recommendation will also be provided herein with a view to avoid similar acts like the one now turned into a favourite song.
The most appropriate question to place one in area of trepidation, is whether the act of pardon was lawful, that is whether the constitution allows it. If that is so, it should ordinarily be the end of the matter, the rest being peripheral issues. For constitutional lawyers and teachers this should be the first question and perhaps the last. In this regard Section 53 (a) of the Constitution provides that, " The President may grant to any person convicted of any offence a pardon either free or subject to lawful conditions, paragraph (b) states that he may remit the whole or part of any punishment imposed on any person for any offence or of any penalty or forfeiture due to the Government on account of any offence. In the language of Section 53 (a), supra, the President was therefore within his rights and powers to pardon the trio. The Constitution itself has said so, it has clothed him with exclusive jurisdiction to pardon. His act was therefore constitutional and lawful. Again a plain reading of the provisions in question do not require him to do any other act save as provided for under Section 55.
