16.09.2008 - Source: BBC News

Man with 86 wives is arrested by an Islamic court for not divorcing them ("Nigerian with 86 wives arrested") [ID 24738]

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

In Sharia courts all accused persons have the right to appeal; indigent persons are more likely to have their sentences carried out immediately ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 19699]

"In both common law and Shari'a courts, indigent persons without legal representation were more likely to have their sentences carried out immediately upon being sentenced, although all accused persons have the right to appeal. The federal government instituted a panel of legal scholars in 2003 to draft a uniform Shari'a criminal statute to replace divergent Shari'a statutes adopted by various northern states; however, the panel did not produce its report during the year, and states continued to apply their individual codes."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Overview on Sharia court sentences during the year 2007 ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22781]

"Different formulations of Shari'a penal codes (Islamic law) were in place in 12 northern states, and Shari'a courts delivered "hadd" sentences such as caning for minor offenses such as petty theft, public consumption of alcohol, and prostitution; it was unknown if any of the sentences were carried out by year's end. The term hadd refers to those crimes mentioned explicitly in the Koran. For example, those guilty of adultery are subject to death by stoning, but there were no such sentences imposed during the year, and no death sentences were carried out in cases originating in earlier years. In contrast to the previous year, there were no sentences of amputation handed down. However, there were numerous Shari'a cases from previous years pending appeal or implementation of sentence, including pending amputation and stoning sentences in Jigawa, Bauchi, Niger, Kano, and Zamfara States."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Bauchi State: 18 men arrested and charged for dressing as women, which is illegal under sharia penal code ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22784]

"On August 4, Bauchi State police arrested 18 men and charged them with "addressing each other as women and dressing themselves as women," which is illegal under the Shari'a penal code. The men, all in their twenties, were also originally charged with sodomy, but the charges were later changed to "vagrancy" under the Bauchi State Islamic code. After being released on bail, all 18 men were rearrested on September 14 on new charges of criminal conspiracy, membership in an unlawful society, and obscene or indecent acts, which are collectively punishable by eight years in prison, caning, and fines. At a November 29 hearing, the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) asked for postponement due to witnesses traveling. No trial date was announced by year's end."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Constituion provides that states may establish courts on the legal basis of common law, customary law or on Sharia Penal Code ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 23156]

"The constitution provides that states may establish courts based on common law or customary law systems. The law also provides that states may elect to use the Shari's Penal Code in the courts. While the Shari'a courts had been in operation throughout the northern part of the country for centuries, in 2000, Shari'a courts were empowered to hear criminal cases and pass sentences based on the Shari'a penal code, which outlines hadd offenses and punishments, including caning, death by stoning, and amputation. The nature of the case usually determined which court had jurisdiction. The return to the Shari'a courts stemmed at least in part from inefficiencies and corruption in the regular court system."

Document(s): Open document

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Defendants have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the Sharia criminal courts through the common law appellate courts ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 23157]

"Defendants have the right to challenge the constitutionality of Shari'a criminal statutes through the common law appellate courts; however, no challenges with adequate legal standing reached the common law appellate system. The constitution also provides for the government to establish a federal Shari'a court of appeal; however, this had not been done by year's end. The highest appellate court for the Shari'a remained the Supreme Court, staffed by common law judges who were not required to have any formal training in the Shari'a penal code."

Document(s): Open document

14.09.2007 - Source: US Department of State

The constitution provides for courts based on the common law or customary law systems; individual states in the North have additionally created Shari'a appellate courts ("International Religious Freedom Report 2007") [ID 21267]

"The Constitution provides that states may establish courts based on the common law or customary law systems. Individual states in the North have elected to create, alongside the common law and customary law courts, Shari'a appellate courts. Many other states, including Middle Belt states Benue and Plateau, have Shari'a appellate courts. In 2000, 12 northern states (Sokoto, Kebbi, Niger, Kano, Katsina, Kaduna, Jigawa, Yobe, Bauchi, Borno, Zamfara, and Gombe) reintroduced criminal law aspects of the Shari'a legal system. Prior to 2000 the courts used the Shari'a system to adjudicate civil matters only. Adherence to Shari'a criminal law is compulsory for Muslims in some states and optional in others. [...]
Defendants have the right to challenge the constitutionality of Shari'a criminal statutes through the common law appellate courts. As in the previous reporting period, no challenges with adequate legal standing reached the common law appellate system. The Constitution also provides for the Government to establish a federal Shari'a Court of Appeal; however, the Government has not established such a court and has provided no justification for the delay in its establishment. The highest appellate court for the Shari'a remains the Supreme Court manned by common law judges who need not have and do not usually possess any formal training in the Shari'a."

Document(s): Open document

14.09.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Kano State: Public consumption and distribution of alcohol is a punishable offence; in spite of the ban, alcohol was available in hotel bars and restaurants ("International Religious Freedom Report 2007") [ID 21302]

"Kano State maintains on its books steep fines and prison sentences for the public consumption and distribution of alcohol, in compliance with Shari'a stipulations proscribing public alcohol consumption. However, there were no reports of non-Muslims being penalized during the reporting period. In spite of the ban, alcohol was available in Kano at hotel bars and restaurants. In some northern states, government officials have restricted the sale and public consumption of alcohol except on federal government installations, such as military and police barracks."

Document(s): Open document

14.09.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Among some segments of the Muslim community the focus of the Shari'a legal system is shifted to social justice and charity for the poor ("International Religious Freedom Report 2007") [ID 21435]

"There also was a trend developing among some segments of the Muslim community to shift focus away from the criminal aspects of the Shari'a legal system to its tenets of social justice and charity for the poor. Islamic scholars and many Muslim lawyers began educating the poor and the less well informed about their procedural rights under Shari'a. Several lawyers offered free services to the indigent in cases with potentially severe punishments."

Document(s): Open document

12.03.2007 - Source: UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Corporal punishment including Sharia penal code punishments remain lawful in Nigeria ("Special Rapporteur on Torture Concludes Visit to Nigeria [HR/07/35]") [ID 20793]

"The Special Rapporteur notes that corporal punishment, such as caning, and including Sharia penal code punishments, particularly in northern states (i.e. amputation, flogging and stoning to death), remain lawful in Nigeria. Moreover, Sharia-related provisions for adultery and sodomy, discriminate against women and same-sex couples, respectively. The Special Rapporteur recalls that any form of corporal punishment is contrary to the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Under international law, they are not lawful sanctions, and violate the international human rights treaties that Nigeria is a party to, particularly the Convention against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the Convention on the Rights of the Child."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Sharia courts delivered hudud sentences such as caning or death by stoning; it is unknown if these sentences were carried out ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19492]

"Different formulations of Shari'a (Islamic law) were in place in 12 northern states (see section 2.c.). Shari'a courts delivered hudud sentences such as caning for fornication and public drunkenness, and death by stoning for adultery during the year, but it was unknown if any of the sentences was carried out by year's end. The term hudud refers to those crimes mentioned explicitly in the Koran, but which do not necessarily carry a specific punishment. Sentences of amputation were handed down in some cases for offenses other than theft, but no sentences were carried out. Several other stoning or amputation sentences were pending appeal or sentence implementation, but no such sentences were carried out during the year. Numerous sentences under Shari'a were not carried out by year's end because of the lengthy process for appeals. No death sentences were carried out in cases originating in earlier years. Because no applicable case had been appealed to the federal level, federal appellate courts had yet to decide whether such punishments violate the constitution (see section 1.e.); stoning and amputation sentences previously had been overturned on procedural or evidentiary grounds but had not been challenged on constitutional grounds."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Information on the factors determining if a case is brought to a Sharia court ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19695]

"The nature of the case usually determined which court had jurisdiction. In principle customary or Shari'a courts had jurisdiction only if both plaintiff and defendant agreed on this; however, delays, distance to alternative venues, community pressure, fear of legal costs, and individual preference caused many litigants to choose the customary and Shari'a courts over other venues. In some states, cases involving only Muslims must be heard by a Shari'a court. The return to the Shari'a courts that had existed in precolonial times in the north of the country stemmed at least in part from a failure of governance on the part of the federal government. State organs, including judicial bodies, were notorious for an extreme lack of responsiveness as a result of widespread graft and corruption. Other states with Shari'a law permitted Muslims to choose common law courts for criminal cases, but societal pressure forced most Muslims to use the Shari'a court system."

Document(s): Open document

15.09.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Some states with expanded Sharia laws sanctioned private Sharia enforcement vigilante groups (Hisbah) ("International Religious Freedom Report 2006") [ID 17804]

"A number of states with expanded Shari'a laws have sanctioned private Shari'a enforcement vigilante groups (known as Hisbah). In some cases these groups had authority to make arrests, but generally the groups were empowered only to "advise" possible Shari'a offenders. The Hisbah groups were not very active during the period covered by this report."

Document(s): Open document

23.05.2006 - Source: Amnesty International

Sharia trials unfair; right to lawyer frequently denied ("Annual Report 2006") [ID 17513]

"Trials by Sharia courts – since 1999 empowered across northern Nigeria under new Sharia penal legislation to impose floggings and the death penalty on Muslims for zina (sexually related offences) – were in general grossly unfair. They frequently denied the poor and vulnerable basic rights of defence such as the right to a lawyer."

Document(s): Open document

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Shari'a in place in 12 Northern states ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46036],  [ID 15826]

"Different formulations of Shari'a (Islamic law) were in place in 12 northern states (see section 2.c.). Shari'a courts delivered "hudud" sentences such as amputation for theft, caning for fornication and public drunkenness, and death by stoning for adultery, but no death sentence were carried out. Because no applicable case had been appealed to the federal level, federal appellate courts had yet to decide whether such punishments violate the constitution (see section 1.e.). Stoning and amputation sentences had been overturned on procedural or evidentiary grounds but had not been challenged on constitutional grounds. Caning is also a punishment under common law in the Northern Region Penal Code and had not been challenged in the courts as a violation of the law. In some cases, convicted persons are allowed to choose to pay a fine or go to jail in place of receiving strokes of the cane. These sentences were usually carried out immediately, while all sentences involving mutilation or death allow 30 days for appeal."

Document(s): Open document

10.02.2006 - Source: BBC News

Crackdown on Nigeria Sharia groups ("Crackdown on Nigeria Sharia group") [#43956],  [ID 14683]

"Nigeria's federal government has accused the northern Kano State's government of seeking foreign funding to train an Islamic militia."

Document(s): Open document

08.11.2005 - Source: US Department of State

Nigerian constitution prohibits state and local governments from adopting an official religion ("International Religious Freedom Report 2005") [#38877],  [ID 14685]

"The Constitution prohibits state and local governments from adopting an official religion; however, some Christians have alleged that Islam has been adopted as a de facto state religion in several northern states, citing the reintroduction of criminal law aspects of Shari'a and the continued use of state resources to fund the construction of mosques, the teaching of Kadis (Shari'a judges), and pilgrimages to Mecca (Hajj). However, several states, including northern states, use government revenues to fund Christian activities, including pilgrimages to Jerusalem. In general, state governments, whether dominated by Christians or Muslims, tend to lean toward the faith practiced by the majority of residents."

Document(s): Open document

08.11.2005 - Source: US Department of State

12 northern states that have adopted at least parts of Shari'a law ("International Religious Freedom Report 2005") [#38877],  [ID 14686]

"The Constitution provides that states may elect to use Islamic (Shari'a) laws and courts. There are 12 northern states that have adopted at least parts of Shari'a law--Sokoto, Kebbi, Niger, Kano, Katsina, Kaduna, Jigawa, Yobe, Bauchi, Borno, Zamfara, and Gombe. Adherence to Shari'a provisions is compulsory for Muslims in some states and optional in others. Non-Muslims are not required in any state to submit to Shari'a jurisdiction. In some states they have the option, which may work to a defendant's advantage when the penalty under Shari'a is less severe, such as paying a fine rather than a jail sentence under secular law. Defendants have the right to challenge the constitutionality of Shari'a criminal statutes through the secular courts. As in the previous reporting period, no challenges with adequate legal standing reached the secular appellate system. The Constitution also provides for the Federal Government to establish a Federal Shari'a Court of Appeal and a Final Court of Appeal; however, the Government has not yet established such courts.”"

Document(s): Open document

07.10.2005 - Source: UN Human Rights Council (formerly UN Commission on Human Rights)

Since 1999, the legal and religious picture of Nigeria has significantly changed ("Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir; Mission to Nigeria [E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.2]") [#43285],  [ID 14684]

"Since 1999, the legal and religious picture of Nigeria has significantly changed, in particular because several states of the north have decided to extend the scope of application of Islamic law to include criminal matters (hereafter “Islamic criminal law”) through the drafting and adoption of sharia penal codes.

The first to take this path was Zamfara State in 1999. It was quickly followed by 11 other states, in the north and populated by a majority of Muslims: Kano, Katsina, Niger, Bauchi, Kaduna, Sokoto, Borno, Gombe, Kebbi, Jigawa and Yobe. While most of these states already applied Islamic law in certain civil matters, mainly personal law, they used the Zamfara sharia penal code as model, except for relatively minor points. Many commentators have in this regard pointed to the fact that a number of these codes had been adopted in haste and contained mistakes and inaccuracies, or were incomplete.

A common feature of these new legal systems and an argument often used in support of their application is that they are only applicable to Muslims, people from other faiths remaining subject to the old penal code. It has, however, been mentioned that in some cases, non-Muslims may opt for the application of Islamic laws, including in the cases where sentences are lighter than those of the otherwise applicable general law.

Among other provisions, these sharia penal codes provide for a mandatory death penalty as Hadd punishments7 for criminal offences such as zina,8 rape, sodomy and incest.

Many of the Special Rapporteur’s interlocutors including Muslims, supported the view that sharia penal codes had been introduced by state authorities seeking to please their populations. Others maintained that the extension of sharia was a result of the Government’s
failure to address the real problems of Nigerian society. Muslims had progressively turned their backs on the non-religious way of organizing their lives and had found in Islam an appropriate response to their concerns as citizens. An introductory note to the sharia Penal Code of Zamfara State by the state Attorney-General says that the “inefficacy and failure of the Common law ... provide yet another cogent reason and justification for a radical departure in favour of a remodelled Sharia-oriented Penal Code”. He admitted that “the sharia issue endures as the most debated and controversial issue in Nigeria”. He explained that the law adopted in Zamfara was based on the Maliki school and inputs to the bill had included visits to the Sudan and Saudi Arabia.
A large number of Nigerian Muslims support the imposition of sharia. A number of Muslim leaders emphasized that sharia was a way of life for all Muslims and its non-application would deny Muslims their freedom of religion. In Nigeria sharia was only applicable to Muslims; therefore, it was argued, it did not in any way limit the freedom of religion of
non-Muslims. In addition, a number of Muslim leaders believed that English common law had its roots in canon law, making Muslims subject to a legal framework based on non-Muslim norms. Muslim personal law9 has always been applied in Nigeria. On the other hand, after several years of application, Islamic criminal law has created various problems and is far from enjoying unanimous support, even among Muslims. The Special Rapporteur will limit her report to those laws (regardless of their origin) that fall within the terms of her mandate."

Document(s): Open document

08.2004 - Source: Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation

Scope of Sharia ("Nigeria - Länderbericht") [#28135],  [ID 14687]

"Im Bereich des Zivilrechts wurde, wie erwähnt, schon vor der britischen Kolonialherrschaft eine Scharia- Rechtsprechung im Norden des Landes praktiziert (SFH, 2002, S. 13). Seit die langjährige Militärherrschaft jedoch 1999 von einer zivilen Regierung ersetzt wurde, gingen immer mehr Gliedstaaten dazu über, die Scharia vom Zivil- auf das Strafrecht auszudehnen, obwohl sich die Bundesregierung offiziell gegen die Ausweitung der Scharia stellt und diese auch nicht durch die nigerianische Verfassung gedeckt ist. Mittlerweile haben 12 von 36 Gliedstaaten die Scharia übernommen (siehe Liste der Gliedstaaten, Kapitel 3.5.3) (USDOS, 2004 1.c.).

In einigen Gliedstaaten ist ein Muslim verpflichtet sich an den Sharia Court zu richten; aber selbst in jenen Gliedstaaten, die eine Wahlmöglichkeit zwischen Sharia Court und Common Court vorsehen, führt gesellschaftlicher Druck dazu, dass sich Muslime an das Scharia-Gericht wenden (USDOS, 2004 1.e.).

Das Scharia-Strafgesetzbuch ist in den 12 Gliedstaaten auf Menschen muslimischen Glaubens anwendbar; auch Nicht-Muslime können der Scharia-Rechtssprechung unterstellt werden, wenn sie sich dazu bereit erklären (AI 2004, Nigeria – Women 2.1).

Die Einführung und Anwendung der Scharia versprach für große Bevölkerungsteile des Nordens eine stärkere Durchsetzung von Recht und Ordnung und wurde auf dieser Grundlage größtenteils begrüßt. Hohe Kriminalitätsraten, grassierender Korruption und der einhergehenden Straflosigkeit sollte mit der strengeren Scharia-Rechtsprechung entgegengewirkt werden. Mittlerweile jedoch wächst die Skepsis gegenüber der Scharia, da sich nach wie vor vermögende Angeklagte der Verfolgung entziehen können (BBC 24. September 2003). Es zeigt sich zudem, dass die Prostitution und der Alkoholkonsum nicht unterbunden wurden, sondern sich von den Stadtzentren in die Außenbezirke verlagert haben (AllAfrica.com/Daily Champion 28. September 2002) und, dass „ It is mostly the poor and the weak ... who get caught. “ (Economist 27. September 2003). So auch das Urteil von Amnesty International. Wie AI berichtet, fällt auf, dass die Mehrheit der auf Grundlage der neuen islamischen Strafvorschriften verurteilten Personen aus wirtschaftlich benachteiligten Bevölkerungsgruppen stammt. Diese Gerichtsverfahren erfüllten im Normalfall auch nicht die internationalen Standards eines fairen Verfahrens (AI 2003). [...]

Wie Amnesty International feststellt, kommt rechtlich gesehen der Bundesgesetzgebung Vorrang vor der Scharia-Strafgesetzgebung zu. Trotzdem werden Verurteilungen aufgrund von Scharia-Gesetzen erlassen, welche nicht im Einklang mit Bundes- und Verfassungsrecht stehen (AI 11. Februar 2003)."

Document(s): Open document

08.2004 - Source: Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation

Sharia Criminal Law ("Nigeria - Länderbericht") [#28135],  [ID 14688]

"Obgleich die Regierung ein Expertengremium eingesetzt hat, um ein einheitliches Scharia-Strafgesetz festzulegen, bedienen sich die Gliedstaaten bislang noch unterschiedlicher Strafgesetzbücher (USDOS
2004, 1.e.).

Das Strafrecht der Scharia gliedert sich in 3 Teile: die Hudud, die Quisas sowie die Tazir. Hudud stellen gewisse Verhaltensweisen (z.B. Alkoholgenuss, Diebstahl) unter absolute Strafen (festgesetztes Strafmaß). Die Beweislast liegt hier bei der Anklage. Quisas sehen die Vergeltung von Gleichem mit Gleichem vor (z.B. Körperverletzung, Tötung), wiederum als absolute Strafen. Ob das Urteil schlussendlich vollstreckt wird, hängt vom Geschädigten ab. Ein Geständnis kann nicht widerrufen werden. Bei Tazir Delikten, wie Hexerei und Juju (AI 2004, Nigeria – Women) entscheidet der Richter über das Strafmaß; als Ziel gelten die Läuterung der Straffälligen sowie eine gewisse Abschreckungswirkung (SFH 2002, S. 11-12). Die Todesstrafe wird in folgenden Fällen ausgesprochen: Unzucht ( Zina), Vergewaltigung, Sodomie, Inzest, Raub, vorsätzlicher Mord sowie für spezielle Fälle von Hexerei (AI 2004, Nigeria – Women). [...]

Seit Einführung des Scharia-Strafrechts hat sich eine nationale Debatte darüber entspannt, ob körperliche Strafen wie Prügel, Auspeitschen und Amputationen nicht der Verfassung widersprechen, wie das UK Home
Office auf das US State Department Bezug nehmend festhält (UK Home Office 2004, Nigeria 5.14). Die Verfassungsbestimmung 34, 1 hält fest, dass keine Person der Folter oder unmenschlicher oder erniedrigender Behandlung unterworfen werden soll. (Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999)."

Document(s): Open document

07.11.2003 - Source: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

Query response on the location of the Bwari Sharia Court in Abuja, Federal Capital Territory (FCT), and whether it has a jail for long detentions; whether sharia is applied in Bwari and Abuja, FCT ("The location of the Bwari Sharia Court in Abuja, Federal Capital Territory (FCT), and whether it has a jail for long detentions; whether sharia is applied in Bwari and Abuja, FCT [NGA42111.E]") [ID 24736]

Document(s): Open document

10.2003 - Source: UK Home Office

According to its Constitution, Nigeria is a secular state; variations of Shari'a law have been adopted by 12 northern states ("Country Report - October 2003") [#17332],  [ID 14689]

"6.23 Nigeria's Constitution enshrines Nigeria as a secular state. Shari'a Law has existed in Nigeria for many years, and the Constitution contains provision for Shari'a courts to deal with issues of family law. On 27 October 1999 Zamfara state announced that they would introduce Shari'a Law for criminal cases. [107][115] As of April 2002, 12 northern states have adopted variations of Shari'a law, theses are Zamfara, Sokoto, Kebbi, Niger, Kano, Katsina, Kaduna, Jigawa, Yobe, Bauchi, Borno, and Gombe. Adherence to the new Shari'a provisions is compulsory for Muslims in some states and optional in others. [3] Zamfara State carried out the first judicial amputation under Shari'a on 23 March 2000, and further sentences have subsequently been carried out."

Document(s): Open document

10.2003 - Source: UK Home Office

Sharia courts extended their powers to cover criminal and civil proceedings ("Country Report - October 2003") [#17332],  [ID 14690]

"5.22 In Twelve Northern States Shari'a courts, which are lower courts in the hierarchy of the Nigerian judicial system, have extended their powers to cover criminal as well as civil proceedings and as such are able to hand down death sentences, a power formerly reserved to the High Courts. The States concerned are relying on an unclear clause in the Constitution. Their jurisdiction to extend their powers will eventually have to be tested in the Higher federal courts. Previously, the lower courts used Shari'a legal concepts only to determine cases in civil and personal matters. The provisions, in the new legislation, that guaranteed constitutional rights of appeal to the higher federal courts remains unclear. Rules of evidence and procedure used in criminal matters in the Shari'a courts differed from those applied in the Magistrates' Courts, and discriminated against women."

Document(s): Open document

10.2003 - Source: UK Home Office

Debate on the Sharia law and the nigerian constitution ("Country Report - October 2003") [#17332],  [ID 14691]

"5.14 The extension of Shari'a law in many northern states has generated a public debate on whether Shari'a punishments such as amputation for theft, caning for fornication and public drunkenness constituted "torture or inhuman or degrading treatment" as stipulated in the Constitution. Caning as a punishment is available under Nigerian common law, the Northern Nigerian Penal Code, and Shari'a law and has not been successfully challenged in the court system as a violation of the cruel and inhuman punishment clause of the Constitution. While the expanded Shari'a laws do not apply to Christians, the Christian minority, especially in Zamfara and Sokoto States, are subjected to many of the social provisions of the law."

Document(s): Open document

07.07.2003 - Source: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

Query response on the issuance of fatwas; whether fatwas can only be issued by a Mufti or Imam; how one learns whether a fatwa has been issued against them; whether an organisation such as the Harakatul El Mujahideen El Islamiya Society of Nigeria can issue a fatwa ("Issuance of fatwas; whether fatwas can only be issued by a Mufti or Imam; how one learns whether a fatwa has been issued against them; whether an organization such as the Harakatul El Mujahideen El Islamiya Society of Nigeria can issue a fatwa [NGA41680.E]") [ID 24737]

Document(s): Open document

28.05.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

Report on Human rights situation 2003 ("Annual Report 2003") [#13067],  [ID 14692]

"Penal legislation inspired by Sharia (Islamic law), which had been gradually introduced in 12 states in northern Nigeria since 1999, was applied throughout the year. One person was executed for murder after being sentenced to death in 2001 by a Sharia court in Katsina. During 2002 at least five people were sentenced to death under this legislation and in at least three cases corporal punishments of amputation of hands or flogging were carried out. Three people were sentenced to death by High Courts. The security forces continued to act with impunity. No one was brought to justice for the extrajudicial execution of civilians by the army in Bayelsa and Benue States in 1999 and 2001 respectively."

Document(s): Open document
Open document

28.05.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

Floggings and amputations were repeatedly carried out in towns and villages within hours of sentencing ("Annual Report 2003") [#13067],  [ID 14693]

""Most of those convicted under the new penal legislation were from economically deprived backgrounds. In the majority of cases, international standards for fair trial, such as the right to legal representation, were not observed. Floggings and amputations were repeatedly carried out in towns and villages within hours of sentencing.""

Document(s): Open document
Open document

28.05.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

Ministers of Justice and attorney condemned the application of Sharia and argue that Sharia introduces religious discrimination in the country. ("Annual Report 2003") [#13067],  [ID 14694]

"In March, in a letter to the governors of the 12 states that had introduced Sharia-based penal legislation, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Republic stated that the new codes were unconstitutional as they were discriminatory on grounds of religion. The Minister stated: "[A] Muslim should not be subjected to a punishment more severe than would be imposed [on] other Nigerians for the same offence". However, the federal government took no action to change the new penal legislation or prevent its application."

Document(s): Open document
Open document

28.05.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

Conflicting statements of the Nigerian authorities on the death penalties by stoning issued by Sharia courts ("Annual Report 2003") [#13067],  [ID 14696]

"Sharia courts sentenced several people to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments. Dozens of people were sentenced to have their hands amputated for theft or armed robbery and to flogging for fornication, consumption of alcohol and other offences. The sentences were passed in Sokoto, Zamfara, Kano, Kebbi, Bauchi, Kaduna, Jigawa and other northern states. At least three sentences of flogging or amputation were carried out in Zamfara and Bauchi States."

Document(s): Open document
Open document

28.05.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

Minister of Justice and attorney condemned the application of Sharia and argue that Sharia introduces religious discrimination in the country. ("Annual Report 2003") [#13067],  [ID 15064]

"In March, in a letter to the governors of the 12 states that had introduced Sharia-based penal legislation, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Republic stated that the new codes were unconstitutional as they were discriminatory on grounds of religion. The Minister stated: "[A] Muslim should not be subjected to a punishment more severe than would be imposed [on] other Nigerians for the same offence". However, the federal government took no action to change the new penal legislation or prevent its application."

Document(s): Open document
Open document

07.10.2002 - Source: US Department of State

12 northern states adopted variations of the Sharia law ("International Religious Freedom Report 2002") [#8895],  [ID 14697]

"The Constitution provides that states may elect to use Islamic (Shari'a) customary law and courts. Until the reintroduction of criminal Shari'a by Zamfara State in 2000, the jurisdiction of Shari'a courts, which are part of the regular court system, had been limited to family or personal law cases involving Muslims, or to civil disputes between Muslims who consent to the courts' jurisdiction. However, the Constitution states that a Shari'a court of appeal may exercise "such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by the law of the State." Some states have interpreted this language as granting them the right to expand the jurisdiction of existing Shari'a courts to include criminal matters. In 1999 the governor of Zamfara State, Ahmed Sani, signed a bill that established Shari'a courts and courts of appeal in Zamfara State, and another bill that constituted the Shari'a penal code; the bills took effect in 2000. Zamfara's law adopted traditional Shari'a in its entirety, with the exception that apostasy was not criminalized. Other Muslim communities, particularly from Kano, Niger, Sokoto, Jigawa, Borno, Yobe, Kaduna, and Katsina states, began to echo the call for Shari'a in their states.

By the end of the period covered by this report, 12 northern states had adopted variations of Shari'a law--Zamfara, Sokoto, Kebbi, Niger, Kano, Katsina, Kaduna, Jigawa, Yobe, Bauchi, Borno, and Gombe. According to media reports, elements of the large Muslim minority of Oyo State have called for the implementation of elements of civil Shari'a; however, the Government has not responded. Adherence to the new Shari'a provisions is compulsory for Muslims in some states and optional in others.

On November 2, 2001, Kaduna State implemented a modified version of Shari'a law. According to state Governor Ahmed Makarfi, Islamic punishments will not be incorporated into the criminal code in Kaduna, as has happened in several other northern states."

Document(s): Open document

07.10.2002 - Source: US Department of State

USDOS: Problem of the constitutionality of Sharia criminal law ("International Religious Freedom Report 2002") [#8895],  [ID 14698]

"In 1999 President Obasanjo expressed the view that the expanded Shari'a provisions were unconstitutional; however, the Federal Government did not intervene legally to annul the provisions. The Federal Government tacitly has acknowledged the ability of states to implement criminal Shari'a. However, the Federal Government has instituted a committee charged with the responsibility to draft uniform Shari'a criminal and procedural laws that could be adopted by all states. In March 2002, Justice Minister Kanu Agabi made public a letter to northern governors in which he stated that sentences given under Shari'a law should not be harsher than those imposed by general secular law; however, no action resulted from this letter."

Document(s): Open document

29.08.2002 - Source: Integrated Regional Information Network

Sharia punishment may lead to legal battle between supporters and opponents of Sharia ("29/08/2002 - IRIN: Focus on Shari'ah sentence controversy") [ID 14700]

"Harsh sentences imposed by Islamic courts in northern Nigeria since a dozen states adopted the Shari'ah legal code over the past two and a half years have drawn consistently strong criticism from President Olusegun Obasanjo's federal government.
However, analysts say the sentence of death by stoning which stands over 30-year-old mother, Amina Lawal, and which was recently confirmed by an appeal court in Katsina State, may provide the platform for a conclusive legal battle between supporters and opponents of Shari'ah."

Document(s): 29/08/2002 - IRIN: Focus on Shari'ah sentence controversy

29.08.2002 - Source: Integrated Regional Information Network

Extension of Sharia to criminal matters creates constitutional ambiguity ("29/08/2002 - IRIN: Focus on Shari'ah sentence controversy") [ID 14701]

"On the eve of Nigeria's independence in 1960, a revised penal code, based on the legal system operating in Sudan, was adopted for northern Nigeria. It limited the application of Shari'ah to civil matters, especially issues of marriage, divorce and inheritance. Criminal matters were to be dealt with by secular courts, and punishments such as stoning to death, flogging and the amputation of limbs were ruled out.
Shari'ah courts in the north had their equivalents in the south and other non-Muslim areas in the form of customary courts operating alongside secular courts. Limitations were imposed on customary courts, like their Shari'ah counterparts, and they could not, for instance, impose sentences of trial by ordeal as had been practised in many traditional societies in the pre-colonial era.
Nigeria's legal system has, then, developed in a manner that sought to accommodate the country's varied heritage - including the Islamic, the traditional and Christian - alongside western concepts of justice.
In the mainly Muslim north of the country, state Shari'ah courts of appeal were set up to handle cases not satisfactorily resolved in the lower courts. At the federal level, every court of appeal was required to have at least three judges specialised in Islamic law.
The constitution also requires that the process of making appointments to the Supreme Court should take cognisance of the need to deal with Shari'ah cases. Of the 15 judges in the supreme court, six are Muslims; since only five judges need sit at any given time, there are enough qualified to hear a Shari'ah case."

Document(s): 29/08/2002 - IRIN: Focus on Shari'ah sentence controversy

29.08.2002 - Source: Integrated Regional Information Network

Death sentence for adultery is unconstitutional, but the Federal government fears alienating northern states by taking action [ID 14702]

"Minister of Justice and Attorney-General Kanu Agabi was more pointed in expressing the government's readiness to challenge the death sentence for adultery. "The death sentence on Amina... raised substantial issues of law and fact worthy of the attention of the court of appeal," he told reporters. "We must appeal against the judgement." [...]
Critics have bemoaned what they see as the weakness of the government's case-by-case approach to the Shari'ah judgements. "This approach of taking each case as it comes up is certainly not good enough," human rights lawyer Onoja Ocheje told IRIN. "The Shari'ah sentences represent a fundamental challenge to the constitution, which Obasanjo and his government have sworn to defend."
Not only does the Nigerian constitution forbid torture, inhuman and degrading treatment but the country is a signatory to international conventions that are in direct opposition to such practices, Ocheje said. Besides, he added, the Nigeria constitution states that where any law (whether passed by local or regional governments) come into conflict with the constitution, then such laws become void.
Curiously, the Nigerian state governments that have introduced Shari'ah law defend their right to do so on the constitutional guarantee on the freedom of religion. Shari'ah, they have repeatedly argued, is inseparable from the practice of Islam. [...]
Obasanjo has resisted demands to seek a Supreme Court resolution of the Shari'ah crisis in Nigeria on the grounds that it could lead to the polarisation of the country along religious lines. But if the Lawal case makes its way to the highest court, some analysts fear the outcome will be the same."

Document(s): Open document

26.08.2002 - Source: World Organisation Against Torture

Sharia controversy led to mass killings in Kaduna in 2000 ("Hope Betrayed ? A Report on Impunity and State Sponsored Violence in Nigeria") [#8522],  [ID 14703]

"Amidst this controversy, the embrace of Shariah moved to Kaduna State, indicating a movement from states with clear Muslim predominance like Zamfara, Niger and Kano, to places with relatively strong Christian populations, like Kaduna. In December 1999, the Kaduna State House of Assembly constituted an 11-person committee to examine the applicability of Shariah criminal law in Kaduna State. This singular action polarised the House of Assembly across religious lines. The Christian members of the House of Assembly argued that the motion was not properly passed, and accused the Muslim members of having a hidden agenda. The Committee in fact comprised only Muslims. The Muslims, in turn, argued that Shariah is purely a Muslim affair that had nothing to do with Christians. They also maintained that there was nothing wrong with the way the motion was passed, pointing out that two Christian members nominated to participate in the committee declined their nominations.[…]
The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Kaduna State branch protested to the House on the issue. They expressed their fears concerning what they perceived as an attempt to “Islamise Kaduna State” and the possibility of such action generating crisis in Kaduna. While the Christians continued to protest, the Muslims were strongly behind the State Assembly, using every opportunity to express their solidarity with the House.
Both Muslims and Christians used their worship centres to pass commentaries on Shariah. While this was going on, the Kaduna State government constituted an inter-religious committee consisting of equal numbers of Muslim and Christian leaders, all in an attempt to calm the political temperature. After the public hearing of the committee of the State House of Assembly, CAN Kaduna Branch, organised a public protest against what they called the “planned introduction of Shariah in the state.” The peaceful protest later turned violent and led to mass killings of people. While this crisis was under investigation, another one broke out between May 22 and 23, 2000. […]
A majority of our respondents attributed the crisis to the long socio-political rivalry and acrimony between the Hausa-Fulani majority in Kaduna State and the significant but minority Christians. Others believe that the “planned introduction” of Shariah in the state was the main cause of the crises."

Document(s): Open document
omct-cleenNigeriareport0802.pdf

10.06.2002 - Source: Schweizerische Flüchtlingshilfe

Sharia has been introduced into the penal codes of 12 northern federal states; divergent interpretations of Sharia law ("Nordnigeria, Update Mai 2002 ") [#8103],  [ID 14704]

Document(s): Open document

10.06.2002 - Source: Schweizerische Flüchtlingshilfe

Detailed background information on Sharia ("Nordnigeria, Update Mai 2002 ") [#8103],  [ID 14705]

Document(s): Open document

01.05.2002 - Source: BBC News

BBC: Sharia introduced for Muslim community in a sourthern state, Oyo ("Sharia law 'reaches' Nigeria's south") [#6688],  [ID 14706]

"Muslim leaders in Nigeria say they have introduced Islamic Sharia law in a southern state for the first time. In defiance of the authorities in Oyo State, the Supreme Council of Sharia says it has carried out a ceremony in Ibadan's central mosque to inaugurate a panel to rule on civil matters in the region. [The secretary general of Nigeria's Supreme Council for Sharia, Alhaj Nachu Baba Ahmed] says there have been moves to introduce a less radical form of the Islamic code in the southern state of Oyo in the past. But the state authorities have so far refused to allow their applications there."

Document(s): Open document

03.04.2002 - Source: Integrated Regional Information Network

Constitutional conformance of Sharia practice controversial ("03/04/2002 - IRIN: Focus on Constitutional Crisis Caused by Islamic Law") [ID 14707]

Document(s): 03/04/2002 - IRIN: Focus on Constitutional Crisis Caused by Islamic Law

28.02.2002 - Source: Center for Global, International and Regional Studies

Jibrin Ibrahim: Sharia debate is a debate over the redefinition of Nigerian political community ("Democracy and Minority Rights in Nigeria: Religion, Shari’a and the 1999 Constitution"), Autor: Jibrin Ibrahim [ID 14708]

"The Debate over the Shari’a has posed in clear terms the contest over the definition and redefinition of Nigeria’s political community. Section Ten of the 1979 and 1999 Constitutions have a very short prohibition section, which states that: "The Government of the Federation or of a state shall not adopt any religion as a State Religion." Christians have argued that the interpretation of this provision is that the country is secular, a position that Muslim activists, have rejected. Following the rejection of the concept of secularism by Muslims, the formulation in Section 10 was done by the Obasanjo administration in 1979 in such a way as to deliberately ambiguous, in our view. The major problem with the provision is that it appears to allow for preferential treatment to be accorded to particular religions without formally adopting the said religion as a state religion. The 1989 Constituent Assembly tried to clarify the situation by formulating a less ambiguous provision: "No Government shall overtly or covertly give preferential treatment to any particular religion". This formulation was however rejected by President Babangida’s Armed Forces Ruling Council which decided to retain the 1979 formulation. The same thing happened with the 1995 and 1999 Constitutions. The implication of the retention of this provision is that a political choice for an ambiguous formulation has been made and political actors have more room to make public policy choices on the terrain. It is this ambiguity that has treated the conditions for the current political crisis over the introduction of Shari’a criminal laws in some states in the country. Each side has interpreted it in a manner that supports particular conceptions of Nigeria’s political order – federalism."

Document(s): Open document

28.02.2002 - Source: Center for Global, International and Regional Studies

Ibrahim: Sharia restricts cultural expression, musicians and novelists threatened ("Democracy and Minority Rights in Nigeria: Religion, Shari’a and the 1999 Constitution"), Autor: Jibrin Ibrahim [ID 14709]

"One of the effects of the introduction of Shari’a in Northern Nigeria is an assault on culture. There is a wide blanket of bans, not just of alcohol and prostitution, but also of cinema houses, video production, drumming, singing and dancing. In Katsina State for example, a number a clashes occurred between Muslim musicians and Yan Hizba, vigilante enforcers of Shari’a law. While the musicians argued that the Sharia code does not ban drumming and singing, the enforcers believed all traditional music, singing and dancing in Muslim Hausaland must cease immediately (Trust, 6th June 2001).
The State authorities finally pronounced that the Shari’a code permits drumming and singing on specific occassions such as marriages and naming ceremonies. The enforcers have however refused to accept the position and continue to attack Muslim artistes and deny the Hausa Muslim community access to their culture. A related development is the attack on the Soyaya writing and video production in central Hausaland. Soyaya, “romantic” literature emerged in the early 1990s as a vigorous form of creative writing in central Hausaland, especially the Kano area."

Document(s): Open document

09.2001 - Source: European Commission

Ruud Peters: Study of Sharia Penal Codes (includes comparison of provisions of state penal codes) ("The Reintroduction of Islamic Criminal Law in Northern Nigeria. A Study Conducted on Behalf of the European Commission") [#10686],  [ID 14713]

Document(s): Open document

22.02.2001 - Source: Christian Science Monitor

In Zamfara, Sharia is a democratic choice [ID 14711]

"The move has transformed Zamfara from a crime-ridden backwater to a safe, model state and catapulted its first democratically elected governor - who campaigned on a promise to restore Muslim morality - from unknown bureaucrat to the darling of the Islamic world. Since that time, residents across Nigeria's Muslim north have demanded that their newly elected state governors follow uit.
So far, another 10 of Nigeria's 36 states have announced their intention to introduce sharia law - returning the region to its pre-colonial roots, when Islamic scholars, not secular judges, meted out justice.
"This is the benefit of democracy," says Isa Ibdulsalam, an academic who is advising Kano State government on the reintroduction of sharia law. "The people can come forward and demand something. Under previous regimes, people didn't have that freedom.""

Document(s): Open document