It’s curious that the Appeal Court of Nigeria, Kano Division, on August 17, ordered a retrial of the case involving Kano-based Muslim musician Aminu Yahaya Sharif, who was controversially sentenced to death for blasphemy under Islamic law, also known as Sharia.
The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the judgement of Kano State High Court, Appellate Division, which, in January 2021, had ordered a retrial of the blasphemy case based on observed irregularities in the trial that led to the singer’s conviction.
An upper Sharia court in Kano State, in August 2020, had found Sharif guilty of “insulting religious creed” regarding a song he circulated via WhatsApp. The Islamic singer’s song was said to have elevated Senegalese Sheikh Ibrahim Niass of the Tijaniyyah Muslim sect above Prophet Muhammad. Qadi Aliyu Muhammad Kani, who sentenced the singer to death by hanging, said the verdict was based on Section 382 (6) of Kano State Sharia Penal Code Law 2000.
In his appeal against the judgement, he had argued that he was not represented by a lawyer during the trial, which was contrary to the principles of natural justice. Importantly, he had also emphasised that his trial, conviction, and sentencing “were unconstitutional, null and void, having grossly violated and conflicted with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended and having violated the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
After losing the appeal at the state high court, which had ordered a retrial, he had sought justice at the Federal Court of Appeal, which has now also ordered a retrial. The state’s attorney general and commissioner for justice, Musa Lawan, was reported to have described the judgement as a victory for the people of Kano, adding that the federal appeal court recognised Kano State Sharia Penal Code Law, 2000.
This, surely, is the crux of the matter. The question is whether Sharif should have been tried for blasphemy in the first place, considering that the charge is inconsistent with the country’s overriding secular constitution. The order that a retrial be conducted under the same Islamic law does not address the fundamental issue of the alleged unconstitutionality of the initial trial. Predictably, the latest judgement is seen as a win by Sharia proponents.
The retrial order by the federal appeal court raises fundamental issues about the operation of Sharia in the country. Nigeria is a multi-religious but secular country where the Islamic system of justice operates in 12 northern Muslim-majority states alongside a secular justice system. Only Muslims can be tried in the Sharia court. Non-Muslims are required to give their consent before trial under Sharia.
Sharia has been controversial since its introduction in 1999. Apart from conflicting with the country’s constitution, the death penalty for blasphemy under Sharia also violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Nigeria is a signatory to this treaty that is designed to protect basic human rights and restricts the death penalty to the “most serious crimes,” which are crimes that involve intentional killing.
Blasphemy is not a crime under the country’s secular constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Although the country’s federal system of government accommodates the sharing of power between the national authority and the constituent units, such an arrangement should not redefine the country’s pivotal secularism.
In the circumstances, there is an urgent need to address the Sharia question. Sharia court judgements can be challenged in Nigeria’s secular Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The judgement of the Federal Court of Appeal, which ordered the singer’s retrial under Sharia, essentially leaves the matter unresolved. At some point, the Supreme Court will need to make a clarifying and definitive pronouncement on the operation of Sharia and the supremacy of the country’s constitution.
It remains to be seen if Sharif’s retrial for blasphemy under Sharia will lead to a different outcome. The intervention of the Federal Court of Appeal should have resolved the matter in favour of the country’s secularism.