Category: Freedom of expression

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

Bid to extend Shariah Law

On Thursday, 24th October 2024, the House of Representatives rejected a bill seeking to amend the Federal Constitution by expanding the scope for Sharia Law. The 1999 (Amended) Constitution permits States to enact Shariah provisions, but this right is explicitly limited to personal law, such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance.

The bill, sponsored by Bauchi State member Aliyu Misau, sought to remove the word “personal” wherever it appeared in sections 24, 262, 277, and 288 of the Constitution. Misau argued that restricting States to personal Shariah prevents them from implementing Islamic commercial law, which is required with the advent of Islamic banks.

Soloman Bob, representing Ahoada East/Abua/Odual Federal Constituency, Rivers State, opposed the bill, warning that it would expand the application of Islamic law beyond the “Personal matters” envisaged by the drafters of the 1999 constitution. He said, “The word ‘personal’ was put there for a reason.”

We are grateful to the National Assembly for rejecting this bill. In some ways, it could be viewed as a Trojan Horse. Zamfara State introduced Shariah Criminal Law in January 2000, and by 2002, a further 11 States had followed suit. Shariah Criminal Law goes far beyond the Constitutional permit but is in daily use in Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Niger, Sokoto, Yobe, and Zamfara. This bill would have helped shield these states from Supreme Court action to strike down these unconstitutional laws.

Nigerian States that have implemented Shariah Criminal Law are vulnerable in two ways: firstly, they have exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution and, secondly, aspects of Shariah Criminal Law conflict with human rights conferred by both the Constitution and by the The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which Nigeria has ratified.

Yahaya Sharif-Aminu is an example of a Nigerian citizen whose rights have been trampled by Shariah Law. In August 2020, the 22-year-old was sentenced to death by hanging for praising Imam Ibrahim Inyass on WhatsApp. He was tried and sentenced without legal counsel. Our lawyers intervened and appealed against his conviction. On appeal, his conviction was set aside but was remitted back to the Shariah Court for retrial.

Our lawyers are now awaiting a date for the Supreme Court to hear Mr Sharif-Aminu’s third appeal. At this hearing, we shall argue that the Shariah Laws used to prosecute him are unconstitutional and should be struck down.

Please see below a letter from our Director, Kola Alapinni, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives addressing this matter.

“Thursday 31st October 2024
 
Sir:
 
RE: BILL SEEKING THE EXPANSION OF THE PROVISION FOR ISLAMIC LAW AS CONTAINED IN THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (AS AMENDED) BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMBER ALIYU BAPPA MISAU
 
The above subject-matter refers.
 
We acted as Counsel in two blasphemy trials that took place in the Kano State High Court and the Court of Appeal, Kano Division between 2020 – 2022 and continue to act as legal advisers to numerous other blasphemy cases in Northern Nigeria.

One of those cases is now at the Supreme Court and the appellant Mr. Yahaya Sharif-Aminu (a.k.a The Kano Singer) is challenging the constitutionality of the Sharia/Islamic Penal Code as currently being practised in fourteen States of Northern Nigeria. Please, see attached our Brief of Argument filed before the Supreme Court in Yahaya Sharif-Aminu vs Attorney-General of Kano State & Governor of Kano State (SC/CR/1454/2022)

It is our argument that the Sharia/Islamic law as currently being practised in Northern Nigeria is a violation of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and also a violation of the obligations of Nigeria under international human rights law which it has signed up to voluntarily. Though, the constitution allows component States of the Federation through their State assemblies to enact Laws, those Laws must be in consonant with the Constitution. The Constitution remains the grundnorm.

This attempt to amend the Constitution through the Bill sponsored by Hon. Aliyu Bappa Misau is a feeble attempt to expand the Sharia/Islamic Law which is limited in the Constitution to Islamic Law ONLY, through the back door. It will fail! We are happy that the National Assembly stood this Bill down for further discussion. It is pertinent to note that, the details of this Bill was not even presented to the members of the National Assembly to study. It is a ruse. If the Sharia Law/Islamic Law as being practised by fourteen Northern States of Nigeria is Constitutional, then there will be no need to seek for an expansion through this Bill.

We hereby draw to your attention that this issue is subjudice. In the interest of the separation of powers, YOU MUST ALLOW the Supreme court to decide this legal question speedily. It is a legal issue, it is not political. You may wish to implore the Supreme Court of Nigeria to hear this without further delay in the interest of justice and once and for all allow all the citizens of this great country to know where they stand. Our client has been incarcerated unjustly for four years.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Warm regards,
 
 
Kola Alapinni (Senior Partner)
of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Barrister & Solicitor
LLM in International Human Rights Law I Essex I
US Secretary of State Awardee 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

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.

Posted on

Umar Farouk Starts New Life

Umar Farouk Safe at Last

As previously reported, on January 25, our lawyers collected Umar Farouk from a courtroom in Kano after a judge set aside his blasphemy conviction. With Kano’s history of mob violence, it was essential to keep him safe for the first few days and then to find long-term accommodation for him in a safe location. Immediately after his release we engaged United Nations help to transfer Umar to Abuja where the UN provided temporary accommodation.

The only family members who stood by Umar during his incarceration and trial were his sister and her husband. With enormous generosity, they agreed to relocate with Umar so he will not be completely isolated.

Umar waiting to board a plane to safety

On February 3, Umar was taken to the Registry of Births & Deaths to obtain a copy of his birth certificate—a vital document for his new life. Later that day he boarded an Ibom Air flight to make a new life in Nigeria. This was the first flight Umar has ever taken and, as he settled in his seat, he must have felt safe for the first time in almost a year.

In more good news, the Director of the Auschwitz Memorial, who read about Umar’s ordeal online, sent a message to our lawyers expressing elation that Umar is free and pledged to raise funds to pay for his education.

As I write this, Umar is sleeping safely in a new abode kindly provided through UNICEF, the Nigerian Human Rights Commission, and a partner agency. We are deeply indebted to these agencies, to our lawyers who put themselves at risk by traveling to Kano on multiple occasions, to the Director of the Auschwitz Memorial, and above all, to Umar’s sister who gave up so much to stand by her younger brother. She and her family will join Umar in a few day’s time.

Posted on

Umar Farouk Released

Umar Farouk is Free!

Today, prison guards escorted Umar Farouk to a Kano court where he was handed over to our lawyers. Sixteen-year-old Umar had been found guilty of blasphemy in a Kano magistrates court on August 10 and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with menial labor. 

Our lawyers successfully appealed the sentence. It is a joy to see this young boy free at last. I would like to thank our legal team for their tireless work on behalf of Umar and Yahaya Shariff-Aminu—we appealed his death sentence too but the court remitted him back to the Shariah court for a re-trial.

We also thank the United Nations team who kindly attended today to help with transport and temporary accommodation. And we are grateful to the Kano Court and prison service for the judgment and for their cooperation to make the handover safe and straightforward.

However, Kano continues to hold Yahaya Sharif-Aminu on blasphemy charges. Our legal team filed a Notice of Appeal today regarding Yahaya. We will argue he cannot be tried twice for the same offence and that on quashing his conviction, he should have been discharged and acquitted. We will also argue that blasphemy laws within the Kano Shariah Penal Code are incompatible with the Federal Constitution, which protects the fundamental freedoms of religion, thought, and expression.

Posted on

Yahaya and Umar II

The court decides

Our lawyers were in court yesterday to hear the Appeal Court’s decision in the cases of Yahaya Shariff-Aminu and Umar Farouk. These two young men, 22 and 15 years old respectively, were accused of blasphemy and, in the same closed Kano courtroom on the same day in August last year, both were found guilty by Justice Khadi Aliyu Muhammad Kani. 

Neither was represented by legal counsel, and no evidence was produced in either case. The court relied upon admissions of guilt extracted by police through interrogations that were not video recorded.

The judge ordered that Yahaya be hanged from the neck until dead and Umar be imprisoned for 10 years with menial labour. The convicts were granted 30 days to appeal (rather than the normal 90 days) and were held incommunicado with no access to lawyers.

Our lawyers appealed both convictions on November 26, 2020. See details here. 

Umar’s Decision

Yesterday, the court was so crowded with people wanting to witness events that an extra gallery had to be cleared to make room. People took their seats and the decision in Umar’s case was announced first. Chief Judge Justice N. S. Umar and Justice Nasiru Saminu’s decision was that Umar had been convicted in error and the conviction is to be set aside and the court acquitted Umar and ordered that he must be released.

Yahaya’s Decision

Yahaya Sharif-Aminu in prison

The findings in Yahaya’s case were identical and his conviction was quashed. But instead of declaring him discharged and acquitted, the judges remitted him back to the Shariah court for a retrial. We wonder why such different outcomes for two cases in which the facts were essentially the same?

We must speculate, but Yahaya’s case had received huge media coverage whilst Umar’s case had not. Furthermore, Yahaya’s case had incited mobs in the streets of Kano and his father’s house was destroyed by fire. As expected, the packed courtroom was emotionally charged with frequent shouts of “Allahu Akabar” coming from the crowd. It would have taken a brave judge to set Yahaya free against that backdrop. Justices Umar and Saminu were not brave. They opted to let another court decide Yahaya’s fate.

Next Steps

Now the case is over, we have to get Umar released from prison. This involves obtaining a signed warrant from the court and presenting it at the prison. Our lawyers were hoping to do that today but the official signatory was not available so we will try again on Monday. We should all remember, Kano State has the option to appeal yesterday’s decision if they are minded to keep this child in prison. If they do, we will appeal to a higher court.

We also have to decide what to do about Yahaya’s case. If we return to the Shariah court as ordered by the Appeal Court, the argument will revolve around due process and the Appeal court has already found that wanting. Furthermore, the Shariah court is not competent to consider other motions, especially our contention that the Penal Shariah code is incompatible with the provisions of the Federal Constitution of Nigeria. If we can get a court to rule in favor of that argument, the foundations upon which blasphemy laws in Nigeria rest will be swept away and we would be free to challenge blasphemy laws in every state of the Federation.

We Will Appeal Again

So, following a case conference today, our lawyers decided to file an appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal to have yesterday’s decision set aside. This should enable Yahaya to be set free and to have the constitutionality of blasphemy laws in Kano put under the microscope. 

Whatever happens, we will work to have Umar released from prison and transferred to a safe location and to have Yahaya set free.