Blasphemy Law: Ecowas Court Orders Nigeria To Repeal Or Amend Law – Sixt-Media Lane
ECOWAS Court orders Nigeria to amend or repeal blasphemy laws
The court declared Section 382(b) of the Kano State Sharia Penal Code Law (2000), which imposes the death penalty for insulting the Prophet Muhammad, as “excessive and disproportionate” in a democratic society.
The ECOWAS Court of Justice has ruled that the blasphemy laws in Nigeria violate freedom of expression protections guaranteed under regional and international human rights instruments.
A press release from the court on Friday said the court, in a landmark judgement delivered on 9 April (Wednesday), ruled that the existence of such laws is against Nigeria’s international human rights commitments.
Ruling on a case filed by a civil society organisation, the Expression Now Human Rights Initiative, specifically challenging Kano State’s version of the law, the court declared that section 210 of the state’s Penal Code and section 382(b) of its Sharia Penal Code Law (2000) criminalising blasphemy are incompatible with Nigeria’s obligations to protect freedom of expression.
The court’s three-member bench led by Rcardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves struck down the two legal provisions in the Kano State laws, and ordered the Federal Republic of Nigeria to repeal or amend the identified legal provisions and similar laws in Nigeria to align with Article 9(2) of the African Charter.
The Nigeria’s federal government, sued as the sole defendant in the suit, does not have a role in the lawmaking process in states under Nigeria’s federal system, but can only push for necessary legal reforms at that level of government through political solutions.
The two other members of the panel of judges are Sengu Mohamed Koroma (member) and Dupe Atoki, the judge rapporteur, who delivered the court’s unanimous decision.
Blasphemy laws in Nigeria
The judgement highlights concerns over the violation of human rights in blasphemy cases in Nigeria, referencing international conventions and the Nigerian constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion and expression.
Blasphemy laws are deeply entrenched religious issues with social and political contexts in many of the states of the conservative northern Nigeria.
The laws are in force in at least 12 of the 19 northern states.
In Kano, like other states, the law criminalises words or expression, written or verbal, by means of gesture, which show or demonstrate any form of contempt or abuse against the Holy Qur’an or any Prophet shall.
Critics have said the laws pose a significant risk to religious freedom for Nigerians and those who express unpopular or dissenting beliefs, worldviews, or religious interpretations in the states where the laws are in place.
On many occasions, some people have been mobbed to death under vigilante justice for making blasphemous comments.
In 2022, Deborah Samuel, a student of Shehu Shagari College of Education, Sokoto State, was roasted alive by her fellow students on campus for making comments purported to be blasphemous in a class WhatsApp platform.
Others have been sentenced to death or are facing trials on blasphemy charges.
Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, a singer in his 20s, was sentenced to death by hanging by an Upper Sharia Court in Kano State in August 2020 for allegedly making derogatory remarks about Prophet Muhammad in a song.
Regarding allegations of state failure to prevent blasphemy-related mob violence, the court found insufficient evidence to support these claims, noting that media reports without additional corroboration did not meet the required standard of proof.
Earlier in its ruling on the preliminary objection against the suit by the Nigerian government, the ECOWAS Court confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the case under its established mandate in Article 9(4) of its Protocol to address human rights violations within member states.
While accepting jurisdiction, the court narrowed the scope of the challenge, permitting only the freedom of expression claims to proceed.
Claims regarding rights to life and religious freedom were deemed inadmissible as private rights that cannot be pursued through public interest litigation.
About The Author
