Yahaya and Umar I

Two blasphemy cases appealed

Today, our legal team appeared in the Kano High Court, arguing appeals for Yahaya Sharif-Aminu and Umar Farouk. On August 10, 22-year-old Yahaya was sentenced to death and 15-year-old Umar was sentenced to 10 years in jail with menial labor, both on charges of blasphemy. 

The appeals were heard by the Chief Justice of Kano, N.S. Umar and Justice Nasiru Saminu.

Our legal team arrived at court early and passed through a crowd of people who had come to see these cases but were unable to get into the already-packed court. Outside a substantial contingent of police officers were on hand to keep the peace but the crowd remained calm throughout.

Our legal team comprised (from left to right in the picture) Ebuka Ikeorah, Rouf Gazali, AA Muhammad, Murtala A. Alimi, and Kola Alapinni (lead counsel). We are grateful to these men for taking on this controversial case, especially since the Muslim Lawyers Association of Nigeria declared on August 15 that the death sentence on Yahaya was correct and urged the Government in Kano State to carry out the execution. Such a statement from a body that should remain strictly neutral would undoubtedly serve to intimidate lawyers who might otherwise have acted for Yahaya.

Neither appellant was in court today and our lawyers have been officially denied access to them since their trial in August.

Umar Farouk’s appeal was first up. Our lawyers argued that Umar was not legally represented at his trial, that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had been legally represented, and that he was below the age of criminal responsibility at the time of the alleged offense. Interestingly, prior to the court hearing, Kano state lawyers stood by the Shariah definition of “full age”. By this definition, a boy who has underarm hair and is able to produce semen may be prosecuted. However, they did not argue this point in court. In fact, they did not respond to any of the grounds of appeal proposed by our lawyers.

Yahaya Sharif-Aminu

Yahaya Sharif-Aminu

Yahaya Sharif-Aminu’s case was next up. Yahaya was of full age when the alleged offense took place but no evidence was produced at his trial and he suffered the exact same denial of rights and unfair trial process as Umar.

Kano State argued that Yahaya admitted his guilt and admission is “better than evidence”. But, of course, if he had been legally represented he would not have admitted guilt.

Our lawyers made the point that the right to life is a person’s most fundamental human right and this right cannot be denied except after the most diligent and fastidious investigation and trial, which did not happen in this case.

In both cases, our lawyers argued that the Federal Constitution of Nigeria protects the right to freedom of expression and that any law that seeks to deny that right must be void. In other words, the blasphemy laws in the Kano Shariah Penal code are unconstitutional and should be struck down.

The Judges retired to make their judgment. The date on which this will be announced will be advised in due course.

If the Judges should quash these sentences, Kano State Governor, Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, has promised to appeal against the decision. If the sentences are not overturned, we will appeal again. So, we expect these cases to continue, most likely to the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

Freedom of expression

Why FRF supports freedom of expression

Salman Rushdie

If you are in your forties or older, you will remember the publication of Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses in September 1988. When publisher Viking Penguin, took on this novel they could never have imagined the dire consequences that decision would bring.

Some Muslims in the UK considered the book blasphemous and the publisher received tens of thousands of letters demanding that the book should be withdrawn from sale. Then there were demonstrations and bookshops were picketed, then bookshops were bombed. Some countries banned the sale of the book.

With the publication of the book in the US in February 1989, the turmoil stepped up a gear. Demonstrations grew in number and violence and spread to many parts of the world. On Valentine’s Day 1989, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, threw petrol on the flames by issuing a Fatwa declaring the book blasphemous and ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie wherever in the world they find him.

No one knows how many people lost their lives to violence throughout the Rushdie affair but it is almost certain to be counted in dozens.

Recent cases

For many in the West, this was their introduction to the tension between the cardinal Western value of freedom of expression and the Islamic value of intolerance toward criticism of the religion or its Prophet. But we have lived to see dozens more cases from the 2015 Charlie Hebdo massacre in response to the magazine publishing cartoons of Muhammad, to the recent death sentence by hanging imposed on Yahaya Sharif-Aminu in a Northern Nigerian court for “insulting the Prophet”. We have seen judicial killings, isolated attacks and we have seen mob violence.

Echoes of Charlie Hebdo can be heard today as those accused of collaborating with the 2015 attackers are brought to trial in France. On October 16, French teacher Samuel Paty, was decapitated near his school after showing his students images of several Charlie Hebdo front covers in a discussion on free speech. Thirteen days later, three people were killed by an Islamic attacker in the Notre Dame Basilica in Nice. One victim, a 60-year-old woman, was decapitated. In a third incident two days later, a Greek Orthodox priest was shot twice in the stomach by a man carrying a sawed-off shotgun. The assailant is being hunted by police who are investigating a possible religious motive for the attack.

President Macron

France’s President Emmanuel Macron’s condemnation of these attacks and vigorous defense of free speech, including the freedom to depict Muhammad in cartoons, led to protests around the Muslim world with calls to ban French goods and the burning of Macron effigies.

The Muslim response

Many Muslims in France and beyond have condemned the killings in France or, at least, claimed that the killers were not “real” Muslims. For example, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb of the leading Sunni Islamic institution in Egypt said, “As a Muslim and the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, I declare that Islam, its teachings and its Prophet are innocent of this wicked terrorist crime. At the same time, I emphasize that insulting religions and attacking their sacred symbols under the banner of freedom of expression is an intellectual double standard and an open invitation to hatred.”

What we say

We applaud Muslims who speak up and condemn acts of terrorism. But Muslims need to go further than Al-Tayeb. It is not enough to condemn violence without condemning the values that underpin it. Here Al-Tayeb grants that Muslims have valid grounds for hatred. They do not. Fundamentally, hatred is the problem. Hatred must be attacked as much as the violence it spawns. As long as we have hatred, we will have people who will be provoked into violence.

In our world more than 80% of the population is religious and there are dozens of religions and tens of thousands of religious denominations. That makes disagreement over religion inevitable. We can either make our world a tinder-dry forest waiting to be set ablaze by any careless remark or we can act to make it fireproof.

We can make it fireproof by emphasizing tolerance over hatred. Let’s teach our children that tolerance is noble and hatred is wicked. Let’s teach them to talk calmly with people they disagree with, or just to walk away if they hear things that are too uncomfortable to tolerate. In such a world, there would be no judicial killing, no isolated attacks, and no mob violence will befall those who utter unpopular opinions. The world would be a safer place and we may all learn something when ideas can flow freely.

This is why those who wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 included Article 19, the fundamental human right to freedom of opinion and expression.

Blasphemy laws outlaw speech that religious people find offensive. Such laws are usually justified on the grounds that they prevent speech that might cause a breach of the peace. But that logic is utterly perverse. It takes away one person’s fundamental rights in the hope that it will stop another person from engaging in criminal behavior. That is exactly like a law that prohibits me from buying a beautiful car because that will stop potential criminals from stealing it!

At FRF, we strongly support freedom of expression and oppose blasphemy laws that curtail freedom of expression and are themselves a cause of injustice, violence and hatred. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not mean we encourage people to insult or mock religions—we don’t, but we do defend everyone’s right to speak freely, even when some people may feel insulted as a consequence.

Blasphemy laws must go.

_______
Photo credit: Creative Commons

Umar Farouk’s sentance appealed

A Shari’a court in the Hausawa Filin Hockey area of Kano City in Kano state, northern Nigeria, has sentenced a minor to 10 years in prison with menial labour for blasphemy.

Umar Farouk, 15, was found guilty on 10 August of using foul language against God during an argument with a friend.  He has been given a month in which to appeal the verdict.

Umar was convicted on the same day, in the same court and by the same judge who handed down a death sentence on Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, also for blasphemy. See that story here

Like Yahaya, Umar was tried and sentenced without legal representation. He was given leave to appeal but, without, legal help, he had no chance.

This is why we took up his case. Although we were not allowed to meet with Umar or to see a transcript of the court case, we prepared an appeal and filed it at the Kano High Court on September 7, two days before his appeal deadline expired.

Now, we will apply to meet with Umar and will file an application for bail. We have met with some of his relatives and have secured proxy consent to represent him for his appeal.

FRF will not charge fees for this work. We will do this as a charitable service because Umar’s constitutional rights were denied him throughout his detention and trial and because blasphemy is only a religious crime and it is in direct conflict with Nigeria’s secular constitution. 

Yahaya Sharif-Aminu

FRF appeals death sentence

On August 10, Judge Khadi Aliyu Muhammad Kani at the Upper Shariah Court in the Hausawa Filin Hockey area of Kano State, Nigeria, sentenced 22, year-old Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, to death by hanging. He was given 30 days to appeal.

Yahaya was accused of making comments on WhatsApp that elevated Imam Ibrahim Inyass above Muhammad. Shortly afterward a mob gathered around his family home and caused enough damage to render it uninhabitable. The mob then moved to the headquarters of the Islamic police and demanded action against the singer.

Mr. Sharif-Aminu was tried and sentenced without legal counsel. He is was held incommunicado making it impossible for him to seek legal advice to lodge an appeal.

In any case, the intimidation prevalent in the Northern State makes it next to impossible to find a lawyer who is prepared to act for a blasphemer. Most lawyers feel the punishment is justified and wish to see events take their course. Others, accept that everyone has a right to legal advice and due process but are cowed by the extreme anger that surrounds blasphemy cases—no lawyer’s safety can be guaranteed in this state. Even lawyers who are prepared to stand up for justice, know they they face a future of rejection by their legal colleagues and a probable end to their career.

This comes as Mubarak Bala has been held incommunicado in the same Nigerian state for 16 weeks for allegedly insulting the Islamic prophet. Both Sharif-Aminu’s case and Bala’s case have been characterized by a disregard for due process and violation of their human rights.

A chorus of condemnation has rained down on Kano State from Amnesty International, The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and many others. Two petitions have been started at Change.org, including one addressed to Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari that had 85,000 signatures at the time of writing this. Please sign it here.

FRF decided to take action on behalf of Sharif-Aminu and filed an appeal on his behalf. On Thursday, September 3, lawyer Kola Alapinni, an FRF Trustee, filed an appeal against the death sentence. This removes the immediate danger to Sharif-Aminu’s life. Now we will seek access to him in order to prepare his defence.