Category: Blasphemy

Posted on

UN Working Group Confirms FRF’s Stand

Yahaya Sharif-Aminu’s Detention Violates Human Rights.

The Foundation for Religious Freedom (FRF) welcomes the recent publication of Opinion No. 32/2024 by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. This landmark decision sheds light on the injustice suffered by Yahaya Sharif-Aminu and confirms FRF’s long-held position: his arrest, trial, and continued detention violate Nigeria’s obligations under international human rights law.

Summary of the UN Working Group’s Opinion

The UN Working Group examined the circumstances surrounding Yahaya Sharif-Aminu’s arrest, trial, and sentencing under Kano State’s Sharia Penal Code. It concluded that his detention is arbitrary and falls under three critical categories of human rights violations:

Category I – The lack of legal basis for his arrest and detention, including being held incommunicado and denied due process.

Category II – His prosecution resulted directly from exercising his right to freedom of religion, thought, and expression.

Category V – His detention was discriminatory, targeting him as a member of a religious minority.

The Working Group unequivocally stated that Nigeria must release Yahaya immediately and compensate him for violating his fundamental rights. It further urged the Nigerian government to conduct an independent investigation into the circumstances of his arrest and trial to hold those responsible accountable.

Validation of FRF’s Advocacy

Since his unjust arrest in March 2020, Yahaya Sharif-Aminu—a young Nigerian musician—has endured years of systemic injustice. Convicted without legal representation and sentenced to death under Kano State’s Sharia laws, Yahaya’s case has highlighted serious procedural irregularities and constitutional violations. FRF has consistently argued that:

Yahaya’s arrest and trial were unlawful and unconstitutional.

Kano State’s Sharia Penal Code exceeds its constitutional mandate, which limits Sharia laws to personal matters such as marriage, inheritance, and family affairs.

Yahaya’s continued detention despite these violations amounts to a grave miscarriage of justice.

The UN Working Group’s opinion affirms these points. It underscores that Nigeria, as a signatory to international covenants such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), has failed to protect Yahaya’s fundamental rights, particularly his freedom of expression and religion.

Nigeria’s Silence: A Missed Opportunity

The UN Working Group formally invited the Nigerian government to respond to its findings and clarify the legal basis for Yahaya’s continued detention. Regrettably, the Nigerian authorities chose not to engage with the Working Group’s investigation. This silence only deepens concerns about the government’s commitment to upholding international human rights standards and addressing systemic injustices.

Call to Action: Immediate Release and Compensation

The Nigerian authorities must heed the UN Working Group’s decision. The following steps are imperative:

Immediate Release: Yahaya Sharif-Aminu should be released without further delay. His continued incarceration, despite procedural irregularities and the violation of his rights, is unjustifiable.

Compensation: The government must compensate Yahaya for the physical, emotional, and financial toll inflicted upon him and his family over the past four years.

Legal Reforms: Kano State’s Sharia Penal Code must be re-evaluated to ensure alignment with Nigeria’s constitutional and international human rights obligations.

FRF’s Continued Advocacy

The FRF remains unwavering in its commitment to securing justice for Yahaya Sharif-Aminu. We will continue to advocate relentlessly for his release, compensation, and the abolition of unconstitutional blasphemy laws that target religious minorities. Yahaya’s case is not only about one individual’s freedom but also about protecting the principles of tolerance, the rule of law, and freedom of religion in Nigeria.

The UN Working Group’s opinion is a powerful reminder that no one should suffer persecution for peacefully expressing their beliefs. The Nigerian government has an opportunity—and a responsibility—to right this wrong and demonstrate its commitment to justice and human rights.

We will not rest until Yahaya Sharif-Aminu is free and justice is served.

Read the entire UN Working Group Opinion here.

Posted on

Much Ado About The Sharia Law

It is alarming that whilst Mr. Yahaya Sharif-Aminu has been languishing in jail for over four years trying to prove his innocence and also to challenge the constitutionality of the Sharia law as it is currently being practised in Kano State, a lawmaker seeks to expand the scope of the Sharia Law by removing the restriction from Islamic Personal Law to just Islamic Law. This is a sneaky and dangerous move and it must not be allowed to pass.

Kola Alapinni

On the 31st of October 2024, I wrote a letter to both the President of the Nigerian Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. It was my reaction to the Bill that was surreptitiously sponsored by Mr Aliyu Bappa Misau (PDP Bauchi). A week earlier, on Thursday, 24th October 2024, Mr Misau had presented a Bill to the House of Representatives where he sought to expand the scope of the limitation placed on the Sharia Law in the Constitution through the back door. S. 277 of the Nigerian Constitution limits the jurisdiction and the application of the Sharia Law to questions of Islamic Personal Law such as marriage, validity of marriage and its dissolution, family relationship, guardianship of an infant, Wills, Succession, et cetera.

Imperfect as it may be, the framers of the Nigerian Constitution were deliberate in limiting the application of the Sharia Law to personal matters because Nigeria is a peculiar country. It is the largest Black nation in the world. Multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, boisterous and could be highly volatile. It is a huge melting pot of various nation-states coupled together by the colonial British government for their economic interests. Nigeria was not created for Nigerians, it was created for trade, commerce and to supply Britain the ‘mother-ship’ with the much-needed raw materials and mineral resources the Empire needed. 

In recent years, the demography of Nigeria has almost split the country into two along religious lines. Originally, Nigeria used to be two countries, the Northern and Southern protectorate. Lord Fredrick Lugard, the colonial administrator fused the two together to ease the burden of financial administration on the British. The large, agrarian North was not sustainable without the wealth of its Southern counterpart.

The lawmaker thus submitted a Bill for reading to the House, but refused to provide copies of the Bill to his colleagues to study beforehand. None of them had seen the Bill before he introduced it on the floor of Parliament. It was a booby trap. He sought to expand the scope of the Sharia law limited to Islamic Personal law in the Constitution to just ‘Islamic Law’. It was a ruse. The oldest trick in the book. Of course, there was an uproar in Parliament, and the Bill was stood down for proper discussion and for him to provide copies of the proposed Bill to his colleagues to enable them to study it for a proper debate.

Upon the return of democracy in 1999, it was the first time a Northern Nigerian had not been at the helm of affairs since July 1966, except for the accidental regime of General Obasanjo, who succeeded his boss, General Murtala Mohammed. Gen. Mohammed had been assassinated in Ikoyi, Lagos, on his way to the mosque on Friday, 13th February 1976. Obasanjo thus ruled briefly from February 1976 to the 1st of October 1979, when he handed over to the civilian administration of Sheu Shagari. The North held sway again for an uninterrupted twenty years till 29th May 1999 when a now ‘civilianised’ Olusegun Obasanjo was returned to the Presidential Lodge.

A few years into Obasanjo’s first term, one Sani Ahmed Yerima, who had been elected Governor, took it upon himself to champion the introduction of the criminal aspects of Sharia Law in his Zamfara State. It spread like wildfire in Northern Nigeria, and we now have fourteen States in Northern Nigeria practising this brand of the Sharia Law. The Attorney-general of the Federation then ought to have approached the Supreme Court of Nigeria for an interpretation of the Constitution, but he failed to do so, perhaps because of his Principal’s quagmire. Obasanjo was seen as a Northern candidate. He had not only lost in his State, he lost in his ward. If he was going to get a second term, he dared not ruffle the feathers of Northern Nigeria. He thus settled for a political solution and reportedly said it would blow away. The problem is that the storm didn’t blow away, it has turned into a hurricane destroying everything in its path.

The epicentre of this destruction happens in the huge and sprawling city of Kano, where in September 2020, I led the legal team that intervened in two shocking cases of the implementation of the Sharia Law. The first was the case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu (popularly named ‘The Kano Singer’ by the Nigerian media). The second was Omar Farouq Bashir (The Minor). Mr Sharif-Aminu was sentenced to death without legal representation for sharing a WhatsApp voice note where he allegedly elevated his Prophet of the Tijjanniya movement above Prophet Mohammed. Omar Farouq was sentenced to ten years in prison for an utterance he made in a verbal argument when someone took his phone and would not return it to him. He was just a child!

The Kano State High Court freed the minor. In Yahaya’s case, his death sentence was overturned for procedural irregularities and for being sentenced to death without any legal representation. We had argued that the Sharia law was unconstitutional. The court did not agree. The Court even said that S. 10 of the Constitution that states that ‘The Government of the Federation or of a State SHALL not adopt any religion as State Religion’ is not justiciable. We made a further appeal to the Court of Appeal (a federal court), which is the second-highest court in Nigeria. The Court upheld our argument on S. 10 and lampooned the lower court, but the judges couldn’t agree amongst themselves if Nigeria was a secular country or a multi-religious country!

Nigeria is a signatory to various international human rights treaties and instruments like the African Charter, The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), The Child Rights Convention (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to mention a few. The provisions of the Sharia Law currently practised in Northern Nigeria thus violate these documents we have voluntarily signed up for. The Kano State Sharia Penal Code Law of 2000, for instance, has several provisions that allow for stoning to death, amputation of limbs, flogging or lashing of multiple strokes of the cane. This is a violation of S. 34 of the Constitution, which protects the Right to Dignity. The former Governor of Zamfara, who ended up in the Senate, married a thirteen-year-old girl, and nothing happened. It claimed it was his right under Sharia Law, yet Nigeria is a signatory to the Child Rights Convention and also domesticated it as an Act of Parliament. It is called the Child’s Rights Act. None of the Northern States implemented it as a Law in their jurisdiction.

It is thus alarming that while Mr. Yahaya Sharif-Aminu has been languishing in jail for over four years trying to prove his innocence and also to challenge the constitutionality of Sharia law as it is currently being practised in Kano State, a lawmaker seeks to expand the scope of Sharia Law by removing the restriction from Islamic Personal Law to just Islamic Law. This is a sneaky and dangerous move, and it must not be allowed to pass.

In any case, we have alerted the leadership of the National Assembly to refrain from any further discussions on the matter as this would be contemptuous. The matter is sub judice. It will also be an incursion into the territory of the judiciary. It is a legal question that must be answered one way or the other by the Supreme Court. What the National Assembly should be asking is why a criminal appeal and one that is seeking the determination of a crucial question on the constitutionality of the Kano State Sharia penal Code Law has not been heard since being filed at the apex court for two years?

We understand that the Court is overburdened and has not had its full composition for many years. This delay has given room for the likes of Mr. Misau to try to legitimise the injustice in Northern Nigeria by sneaking in an expansion. There is a reason for limiting the Sharia Law application in the Constitution to just ISLAMIC PERSONAL LAW. And if the Northern States were right, the lawmaker wouldn’t be seeking an expansion. Though the Constitution allows for State Houses of Assemblies to make their own laws, it cannot be in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution reigns supreme.

We are sitting on a keg of gunpowder. Our country is being torn to shreds with all manner of religious and tribal sentiment. We must decide quickly how we want it. The First Amendment of the American Constitution guaranteed this for its citizens. Delay is dangerous. We must all be vigilant.

Kola Alapinni
FRF Director of Operations & General Counsel
International Human Rights Lawyer
Recipient of the 2023 US Secretary of State Award on International Religious Freedom

Posted on

Kano Appeal Court orders Yahaya to be retried for blasphemy

On 10 August 2020, Yahaya Sharif-Aminu was convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death by hanging by the Kano Upper Shariah Court sitting at Hausawa Filin Hockey.

FRF appealed the conviction because:

1. Gross procedural errors in the trial (including failure to provide legal representation for Yahaya) made the conviction unsafe, and

2. Shariah blasphemy laws are unconstitutional in Nigeria because they conflict with Sections 10, 38 and 39 of the Constitution.

On 21 January 2021, the Kano High Court quashed Yahaya’s conviction and sentence but remitted him to the same Shariah court for retrial. The court also rejected our argument that blasphemy laws are unconstitutional. The court went further and stated that Section 10 of the Constitution was not justiciable, which means it is not a matter that can be discussed in a law court. (Section 10 prohibits the Federation or a State from adopting a religion as a State religion.)

Four days later, we filed a second appeal. We argued that Yahaya should have been released and not remitted for a retrial, and we reiterated our contention that blasphemy laws are unconstitutional in Nigeria.

Today, Justice Abubakar Lamido, delivered the Kano appeal court’s judgment via a video link. In a majority judgment, the Court upheld the decision of the High Court to remit Yahaya Sharif-Aminu back to the Upper Shariah Court for retrial. Justice Ita Mbaba, argued in a dissenting judgment, that Yahaya should be freed.

The justices also upheld the High Court’s decision on the legality of Shariah blasphemy laws with one exception; they held that Section 10 of the Constitution is justiciable.

This judgment is disappointing. The law relating to retrials has been clarified in several precedent cases. Cases in which procedural irregularities have occurred should not be subject to retrial. So, we believe the majority Justices disregarded the established precedents, whilst the dissenting Justice did not.

Today’s judgment was in summarised form. We plan to appeal again once we have seen the full judgment. The next appeal will be to the Nigerian Supreme Court.

We will make further announcements in due course.

Chronology of events

4 March 2020
Yahaya Aminu-Sharif’s house was ransacked and damaged by a mob.

Early March 2020
Yahaya was arrested.

10 August 2020
Yahaya was convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death. Since his arrest, he had been kept incommunicado with no access to his family or a lawyer.

3 September 2020
FRF filed a notice of appeal.

26 November 2020
Yahaya’s case was heard in the Kano High Court.

21 January 2021
Decision announced. Yahaya’s conviction and sentence were quashed, but the court remitted him to the Kano Shariah Court for re-trial.

25 January 2021
FRF filed a second appeal. This time we appealed to the Appellate Court against the retrial.

There was a long court break because the judiciary was on strike, and the then Presiding Judge of the Court of Appeal, Kano Division, passed away.

1 December 2021
First hearing date: The state’s lawyers failed to turn up. The hearing was adjourned.

10 February 2022
Second hearing date: The state’s lawyers were present but failed to submit their respondent’s brief. The hearing was adjourned.

12 May 2022
Third hearing date: One judge was absent through sickness, and another was absent because of a domestic emergency. The hearing was adjourned.

23 June 2022
Fourth hearing date: The case was heard. Judgment was reserved–to be announced at a later date.

17 August 2022
Judgment announced.

Posted on

Mubarak Bala: Two Years in Prison Today

Arrest

Two years ago today, Mubarak Bala was at home in Kaduna finishing breakfast with his housemate when he heard loud and persistent banging on his front door. Fearing an emergency, he rushed to open it. Standing in his doorway were two burly plainclothes police officers. They grabbed his arms and told him he was under arrest. He asked repeatedly why he was being arrested but the officers would not say.

He asked to call his wife but the officers refused. He asked if he would need to pack an overnight bag. He was told it would not be necessary.

One officer picked up Mubarak’s mobile ‘phone and his laptop computer. Then they bundled him into their car and drove off at speed. The arrest took less than five minutes.

Mubarak has not seen his house since.

Mubarak is the President of the Humanist Association of Nigeria (HAN) so his friend alerted the association that Mubarak had been arrested. Mubarak was held at a police station in Kaduna and taken to Kano overnight.

What Mubarak Expected

Mubarak is a calm character. He was not especially surprised he had been arrested—he had been receiving threats on social media for years. But he knew he had broken no laws and he would have to be charged and brought to court within a few days. He knew the law and expected to be freed within days.

No Access to Lawyers

HAN engaged a lawyer on Mubarak’s behalf but when the lawyer approached police in Kano, they refused to acknowledge that they were detaining him. In July 2020, his lawyers obtained a court order to force the authorities to allow Mubarak access to his lawyers. The court order was ignored.

In contravention of his Constitutional rights, Mubarak was denied access to his lawyers until November that year—seven months after his arrest. Mubarak’s wife was forced to wait seven months to find out if her husband was alive or dead.

Delay Being Charged

Again, in gross contravention of his Constitutional rights, Mubarak had to wait 14 months, until June 2021 to be charged.

Fundamental Rights Petition Ignored

In May 2020, Mubarak’s lawyer filed a Fundamental Rights petition. This is an emergency process designed to remedy a breach of Constitutional rights. By law, such a petition should be heard within seven days but Mubarak’s petition was not heard by a court until October 2020, 164 days after it was filed.

In December 2020, the court found that Mubarak was being illegally detained and had been denied a string of fundamental rights. The court ordered Mubarak to be released and to be paid compensation. He was not released and he was not paid compensation.

The Charges

You may wonder what heinous crime Mubarak has been charged with? Mubarak was arrested following a complaint by Kano lawyer, SS Umar, that a post on Mubarak’s Facebook account was “annoying and provocative to Muslims”. Is that even an offense in Nigeria? No, it is not. Nigeria’s Constitution permits freedom of expression—saying what you like is a Constitutional right.

In an attempt to criminalize protected behavior, Kano state decided to prosecute Mubarak for making statements “in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace”.

Finally, Mubarak in Court

On February 1, 2022, 21 months after his arrest, Mubarak finally appeared in court to face the charges. He pleaded “Not Guilty” but the case was adjourned until April 5.

On April 5, Mubarak was in court again, and, against the strong advice of his lawyers, he changed his plea to Guilty. It seems Mubarak, after almost two years in prison with Kano state denying his rights and continually manipulating the system, had lost hope of receiving a fair trial and decided to throw himself upon the mercy of the court.

The court had no mercy. Mubarak was sentenced to an outrageous 24 years in prison for an offense that carries a maximum penalty of three years.

This is Not Over

Mubarak’s conviction and sentence will be appealed and his friends, and those who respect the rule of law, will stand by him until he is released.

———
Photo shows part of a demonstration outside the Nigerian High Commission in London today.

Posted on

Mubarak Was Not Charged with Blasphemy

Many people are under the misapprehension that Mubarak Bala was charged and convicted of blasphemy. We see some Muslims celebrating Mubarak’s sentence under the illusion that blasphemy laws have achieved their purpose and a blasphemer has been punished. That is not the case. Mubarak was not charged with blasphemy and has not been found guilty of blasphemy. Read on to learn what really happened and why Mubarak pleaded guilty to all counts.

Nigeria’s legal codes

Several legal codes are used in Nigeria. All states are subject to the 1999 Constitution. It is the supreme law everywhere in Nigeria and takes precedence whenever there is a conflict between it and any other law. For most states, criminal law is based upon the Criminal Code Act 1916 with local amendments.

Twelve Northern states, which are predominantly Muslim in character, do not use the Criminal Code, they have adopted the Penal Code 1960 or amendments thereof. In addition, these 12 states have a version of Shariah law.

The status of the Shariah law is interesting. The Constitution permits Shariah law for family and related matters but does not permit Shariah law for criminal matters. Despite this, all 12 “Shariah” states use it for criminal matters.

Shariah law is not universally applicable—these laws can be applied only to Muslims and then only if they opt for their case to be heard in a Shariah court.

Blasphemy laws

Blasphemy is a crime under Shariah and it carries the death penalty. There is no crime of blasphemy in the Penal Code. Under the Penal Code, you can publicly insult any religion or incite contempt for any religion. Such behavior only breaks the law if it is done in a manner “as to be likely to lead to a breach of the peace” (see Penal Code S210). The Maximum penalty provided under S210 is two years imprisonment or an unspecified fine.

Section 114 of the Penal Code has a similar effect except that is not concerned with insulting religion. It deals with any act “with intent to cause or which is likely to cause a breach of the peace”. The penalties permitted under S114 are a maximum of three years imprisonment or a fine of up to three hundred pounds or both.

The actual charges

Mubarak was born into a Muslim family in Kano state. He publicly renounced Islam in 2013. So, when a complaint was made about one of his Facebook posts in April 2020, he was not a Muslim and, therefore, could not be charged under the Shariah law.

Mubarak was arrested on April 28, 2020, but, in violation of his fundamental rights, Kano state delayed charging him until June 2021.

The charges were four counts of publishing Facebook posts contrary to Section 114 of the Penal Code and four counts of publishing Facebooks posts (the same four Facebook posts) contrary to Section 210 of the Penal Code.

By the time of the court case on April 4, the prosecution had trawled Mubarak’s Facebook account and eventually found another five posts which they thought might cause a breach of the peace. So the final tally of charges amounted to 18. That is 9 posts, each of which was charged under Sections 114 and 210.

As I have discussed, none of these charges relate to blasphemy. All charges relate only to acts that are likely to cause a breach of the peace.

Proving the charges

Of course, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mubarak is guilty as charged. So, let’s look at how they could do that.

They have to prove that at least one of Mubarak’s posts would be likely to cause a breach of the peace. It is not good enough to show that they might. At the very least, to be ‘likely’ means there is a higher chance of causing a breach of the peace than of not causing such a breach. How could they do that?

Perhaps they could find a sample of 100 similar posts and show that more than 50 of them caused a breach of the peace. Except, they could not do that. There are literally hundreds of such posts every month and almost none of them causes a breach of the peace. If the prosecution fails to bring this evidence, I’m sure the defense would be delighted to offer it!

What else could they do? Perhaps they could bring 100 randomly selected Muslims who would be prepared to swear in court that the posts would compel them to break the law and breach the peace. I’m sure the defense would have a grand time cross-examining such witnesses!

I challenge anyone to find evidence to prove that Mubarak is guilty as charged. It is a useless law and it is unprovable. Mubarak could not be proven guilty of these offenses.

But there is some evidence that the defense could offer. They could offer Mubarak’s 9 Facebook posts over a period of a month cited on the charge sheet. These were the posts the prosecution thought were most likely to cause a breach of the peace but not one of them did. So how likely was any one of them to cause a breach of the peace. Not at all likely!

Why did he plead guilty?

I have not been able to speak to Mubarak but I believe I have a good idea why he chose, against the advice of his lawyer, to plead guilty to all charges. Mubarak has been incarcerated and isolated from his family and friends for two years. He has been unwell and, at least until recently, he was denied medication that he previously took daily. A court ordered his release in December 2020 but he was not released.

Governments across the world, the United Nations, the European Union, Amnesty International, and many others have appealed to the Kano government to release him and restore his fundamental rights. All appeals have been denied.

Mubarak has seen the cynical manipulation of the judicial system in Kano in which prosecutors, officials, and judges have conspired to delay and avoid justice. I believe Mubarak saw no hope of a fair trial and was in despair. So he tried another tack.

Mubarak knew the maximum prison sentences for the crimes he was charged with and thought he must, by now, have served close to the maximum term. He knew it was his first offense which means he should not be given the maximum term and he should be given credit for pleading guilty, cooperating, showing remorse, and promising not to repeat the offense.

Mubarak decided to take a chance, admit everything (despite not being guilty) and appeal for leniency. The judge threw the book at him. Not only did the judge ignore the sentencing guidelines he is mandated to follow but he, for no good reason and against normal practice, decided to run the sentences consecutively instead of concurrently.

That is how we ended up with a massive and draconian sentence for charges that are both unprovable and that contradict the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.

What next?

There will be an appeal to the Federal Appellate court where we can hope to see diligent and fair legal processes supplant the religiously pressured processes we have seen in Kano.

Both Mubarak’s conviction and sentence will be appealed. I won’t go into details now but there are so many grounds for appeal that I am now, finally, optimistic for a fair outcome and freedom for my friend Mubarak.

Posted on

Mubarak Bala Sentenced to 24 Years

Some days come and go leaving a fading shadow in our minds. Other days, hit us like a jackhammer and leave a deep impression that never fades. April 5, 2022, was one such day.

After just shy of two years in prison, after waiting 14 months to be charged and 23 months for his case to come to a court of law, and 15 months after a court found Mubarak Bala was illegally detained and ordered his immediate release, a court today passed sentence upon this man.

In April 2020, Mubarak was arrested following a complaint by Kano lawyer, SS Umar, that a Facebook post by Mubarak was annoying and provocative to Muslims. You might be forgiven for thinking that, in a modern secular state like Nigeria, in which freedom of expression is explicitly protected by the Federal Constitution, nothing could come of such a fickle complaint. But you would be wrong.

Today, a court in Kano sentenced Mubarak Bala to a term of 24 years imprisonment. Yes, twenty-four years.

That a person should suffer ANY penalty for exercising their guaranteed rights is perverse. But 24 years in a country in which a life sentence is generally reckoned to be 20 years is utterly, shockingly unconscionable. In Kano State, the rule of law has been strangled by those who put their religion above the law.

FRF condemns this sentence in the strongest terms. And we condemn the protracted violations of Mubarak’s fundamental rights and the egregious abuses of due process that have facilitated this horror show.

This injustice will be appealed.

Posted on

Yahaya Sharif-Aminu’s 2nd Blasphemy Appeal in Court Today

Today, FRF lawyers appeared at the Federal Court of Appeal, Kano Division, Nigeria acting on behalf of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu.
 
A Kano Shariah Court sentenced Yahaya to death on August 10, 2020, on charges of blasphemy. Our lawyers successfully appealed that decision on November 26. However, the Kano High Court ordered a re-trial instead of releasing him. More details here.
 
We appealed the re-trial decision and we were in court today to argue the appeal. Kano State lawyers failed to submit arguments to rebut our motion to release Yahaya in advance of the hearing and they failed to turn up in court today.
 
This is a delaying tactic that we have seen repeatedly in the case of Mubarak Bala who was arrested on April 28, 2020, for Facebook posts that apparently offended some Muslims in the state. Mubarak remains incarcerated 19 months later and has yet to be tried. More details here.
 
Under the circumstances, the presiding Justices adjourned Yahaya’s hearing to February 10, 2022. If Kano state lawyers do not show up for the hearing in February, we will ask the Judges to make a decision in their absence based on the evidence in front of them.
Posted on

Blasphemy laws

Blasphemy laws; what are they? And why they must go.

What are blasphemy laws?

Blasphemy laws criminalize speech that is critical of religion or religious figures, or speech that a court finds to be offensive to religious believers.

Some blasphemy laws also criminalize intentional damage to property, such as places of worship, sacred sites or items that are revered by religious people. Blasphemy laws of this type are pointless, since all countries have criminal damage laws that can be used in such cases.

At the Foundation for Relious Freedom we are concerned about blasphemy laws that curtail freedom of expression.

Why do we have blasphemy laws?

Two reasons are usually given to justify blasphemy laws:

    1. They avoid hurting the feelings of religious people. This, it is argued, helps promote harmonious coexistence between different religious groups.
    2. They avoid inflaming the passions of religious believers which could spill over into civil disturbances and violence. In this way they help to keep the peace.

Many people suspect there is a third, unspoken reason for blasphemy laws which is to prevent criticism of a dominant religion that could result in believers drifting away from the faith. In this way, religious leaders and their political allies collaborate to defend the status quo. In effect, this is an attempt by authorities to force their beliefs onto the people which would be a gross violation of freedom of religion.

Are the reasons for blasphemy laws valid?

There is no reason religious feelings should be exclusively protected. It would be absurd, for example, to prohibit criticism of political beliefs. Indeed, only the worst police states would make laws to that effect.

We commonly see people holding very divergent political opinions and living together harmoniously in the same neighborhood—we even see it within families. It would be wrong to prohibit speech that might hurt political feelings and it is wrong to single out religion for such protection. Indeed, being able to discuss the differences between us is an indicator of a healthy society. Open disagreement can help us all to learn.

Using blasphemy laws to prevent civil disturbances and violence is unfair and wrong-headed. Violence and civil disturbance are crimes. In effect, blasphemy laws take away everyone’s right to freedom of expression so that some people will not be tempted to commit crimes.

This is like making it a crime for anyone to buy a new car because that will tempt some people to steal it! It is unquestionably perverse.

Blasphemy laws around the world

It is worth noting that only 69 countries have blasphemy laws which leaves some 126 countries managing perfectly well without them. Furthermore, of those countries with blasphemy laws, many no longer use them—they have become obsolescent.

Most countries with blasphemy laws have had them for a very long time. They are archaic laws that are slowly being repealed. For example, in the last decade or so, Greece, Ireland, UK, Malta, Iceland, Denmark, France, New Zealand, and Canada have repealed their old blasphemy laws.

The penalties for blasphemy range from a modest fine to execution. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, yet in 13 countries you can be put to death for doing something that is a fundamental human right in other countries. All the countries with harsh prison sentences, or in which blasphemy is a capital offense, are majority Muslim countries.

In Nigeria, 12 states have adopted a Shariah-based penal code in which blasphemy is an offence that may carry a death penalty.

So, what’s wrong with blasphemy laws?

As we have discussed, blasphemy laws are perverse and unnecessary. And they do not keep the peace. On the contrary, it is only in countries with blasphemy laws that people take offence and march through the streets to protest rumours of blasphemy. It is only in these countries that we see civil disturbances and violence resulting from allegations of blasphemy. The truth is, blasphemy laws, far from preventing civil unrest, actually promote it.

The way to reduce violence and civil disorder is to promote tolerance but blasphemy laws do the opposite. They send a strong message that the state will not tolerate criticism of religion and harsh penalties indicate that blasphemy is a terrible crime. Blasphemy laws promote intolerance. It is only in countries with harsh penalties for blasphemy that we see mobs killing people in the streets following allegations of blasphemy.

Blasphemy laws take away one of our most important rights—the right to express your opinion and they do that for no good reason. Blasphemy laws are demonstrably unnecessary.

It is not easy to define what speech is blasphemous and what is acceptable. Where is the dividing line between expressing your own personal religious view and offending someone else’s? This allows a person to be accused of blasphemy when they intended no affront, but were merely expressing a personal opinion. It is a crime that you may not know you have committed.

Finally, in blasphemy cases there is often no physical evidence. It is one person’s recollection of what said against another person’s recollection. This allows people to be accused of blasphemy for malicious reasons or through simple misunderstanding of what was intended. A misunderstanding that could change, or end, your life.

FRF’s view

At FRF we oppose all blasphemy laws and call for their repeal everywhere.

We support freedom of religion which means people should be free to practice a religion or to have no religion, to speak openly about their religious beliefs, and to change their religious beliefs. Religion is a matter for the individual, it is not for the state to mandate what beliefs a person may or may not have.

We campaign against blasphemy laws and, wherever possible, we will seek to defend people who have been accused of blasphemy.

Posted on

Mubarak Bala: Direct appeal to President Buhari

At the end of April 2021, we reported that Mubarak Bala had been detained in Kano, Nigeria for a full year without being charged and without being brought to court. For most of that time, he was denied access to his lawyers.

His lawyers filed a Fundamental Rights Enforcement petition on May 8, 2020 and a court ordered Mubarak’s release on December 21, 2020. Kano State did not comply with the Court Order.

Getting up-to-date

On January 28, 2021, Mubarak’s lawyers filed a second Fundamental Rights Enforcement petition. According to the law, such an application must be treated as an emergency but, following delays and prevarication, this case has still not been heard in court, 243 days later. Mubarak has now been held for 517 days without a court appearance.

It has also emerged that Mubarak has an ongoing medical condition that requires regular medication. Despite requests, he has been denied access to a doctor and denied medication. His condition has worsened in recent months and he has been feeling very unwell.

Our next move

Whilst Mubarak’s legal team battle to have his fundamental rights case heard, FRF decided to launch a campaign to put pressure on President  Buhari directly. After all, this case is a clear and egregious breach of human rights that is occurring on his watch. And the case is playing out on the international stage and bringing Nigeria into disrepute.

We drafted an open letter to Buhari and today we placed a full-page ad in the Punch newspaper to give the letter a wide distribution. The open letter was sent to the President, to Senators, and to leading news outlets.

The letter listed the failures of Kano State to respect Mubarak’s constitutionally guaranteed rights and asked Buhari to intervene:

    1. To instruct the Federal Attorney-General to deal with the case as an emergency it is.
    2. To transfer Mubarak to a correctional facility in Abuja where he can be close to his wife, child, and lawyers and to ensure his lawyers have adequate access to him.
    3. To ensure Mubarak gets access to a doctor and to the medication he needs.

Now the President cannot deny knowledge of Kano State’s mistreatment of Mubarak Bala. A copy of the advertisement is attached.

If you can help with Mubarak’s case, please get in touch: contacts@frf-nigeria.org.

Open letter to President Buhari
Posted on

Mubarak Bala illegally imprisoned

Background

Mubarak Bala, President of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, was arrested in Kaduna, Nigeria on Tuesday, April 28, 2020. He was held overnight and taken to Kano State the following day. At the time of writing, he is still incarcerated and he has not appeared in front of a court. Today, Mubarak has been illegally detained for one year.

The Nigerian Constitution is clear, a detained person must be charged and brought before a court within 7 days. Mubarak has not been charged and he has not been brought before a court.

Mubarak’s lawyers have been denied access to him, contrary to the requirements of the Constitution. In July 2020, a court ordered Kano authorities to grant his lawyers access. The Court Order was disregarded. It was not until November, seven months after his arrest, that his lawyers were able to speak to him and confirm he was still alive.

Kano authorities denied Mubarak a list of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, so his lawyers went to court to restore his rights. The petition was filed on May 8, 2020. According to the law, such a case must be treated as an emergency and must be heard within seven days. To its shame, the Nigerian court system in collaboration with Kano State lawyers repeatedly delayed the hearing for 164 days. The case was heard on October 19, 2020. The decision, delivered on December 21, 2020, was that Mubarak must be released immediately and paid compensation for the infringement of his fundamental rights.

Mubarak was not released.

Why was Mubarak arrested?

A complaint against Mubarak was raised on Monday, April 27 by S. S. Umar & Co, a law firm from Kano. It alleged Bala’s Facebook posts were “provocative and annoying to the Muslims”. The complaint, sent to the Kano Commission of Police, highlights a post made on April 25, which rendered in English, reads,

“There is no difference between the prophet TB Joshua of Lagos and Prophet Mohammad of Saudi Arabia, our own from Nigeria is even better in that he was not a terrorist.”

The complaint says Mubarak’s remarks “will definitely incite Muslims and provoke them to take the law into their own hands, which may ultimately result into public disturbance and breach of the peace.”

As the complainants admit, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guarantees citizens the right to freedom of expression. But their concern was not to protect Mubarak’s guaranteed constitutional rights, it was to deny him those rights in order to defend those Muslims who might create public disturbances and breaches of the peace which are ILLEGAL actions. In other words, they sought to defend potential criminals by denying a law-abiding citizen his guaranteed rights!

FRF support

For the avoidance of doubt, FRF does not represent Mubarak. He has his own legal team. Whilst we keep in touch with his lawyers, they pursue their own legal processes entirely independently. Our role has been to publicise the case and support Mubarak’s wife.

We have been working with Nigerian civil society groups, making contact with governments and human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, The United Nations, the European Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, USCIRF, the Nigerian Human Rights Commission, and others.

Our officers have written letters and articles, and attended meetings to publicise this case.

Members of our team speak with Mubarak’s wife several times each week to help her cope with the situation she finds herself in. Her son was six weeks old when his father was arrested and this has been an extremely difficult time for her.

In early August 2020, when we did not know if Mubarak was alive or dead, we drafted a letter on her behalf demanding proof of life. This was sent to international media and to President Buhari, the Nigerian Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. We also sent the letter to every Senator.

Our work continues. If you can help with Mubarak’s case, please get in touch: contacts@frf-nigeria.org.