14.09.2007 - Source: US Department of State

No reports of forced religious conversion; apostasy or conversion is not criminalised in the 12 northern states ("International Religious Freedom Report 2007") [ID 21307]

"There were no reports of forced religious conversion, including of minor U.S. citizens who had been abducted or illegally removed from the United States, or of the refusal to allow such citizens to be returned to the United States. The 12 northern states that reintroduced the Shari'a criminal code did not criminalize apostasy or penalize Muslims that converted to another religion."

Document(s): Open document

14.09.2007 - Source: US Department of State

In the northern states, muslims that converted to another religion have been pressured or ostracized ("International Religious Freedom Report 2007") [ID 21436]

"In the northern states, some community members reportedly pressured or ostracized Muslims that converted to another religion."

Document(s): Open document

15.09.2006 - Source: US Department of State

There were no reports of forced religious conversion ("International Religious Freedom Report 2006") [ID 17807]

"There were no reports of forced religious conversion, including of minor U.S. citizens who had been abducted or illegally removed from the United States, or of the refusal to allow such citizens to be returned to the United States."

Document(s): Open document

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

The right to change religion ("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 15122]

"In their present form, sharia penal codes adopted in northern states of Nigeria have not included the conversion from Islam to another religion among the offences punishable by death. This seems to be explained by article 38 of the Constitution (see para. 26 above), which expressly provides for the right to change religion or belief, but also by the reality of Nigeria, that is, as underlined above, the fact that in many places Christians and Muslims mix to a great extent and interfaith marriages are very common. In the Nigerian reality, it would thus seem
difficult to enforce a rule that would completely segregate Muslims from Christians.

Nevertheless, leaders of the Muslim community maintained that sharia itself prohibits conversion from Islam to another religion and provides for the death penalty for this act. In this regard, it has been argued that nearly all the sharia penal codes of Nigeria (except in Kano State)
provide that Muslims may be convicted for offences that are punishable under sharia itself even in the absence of a provision in the penal code. In addition to raising question under the principle of nulla poena sine lege, this provision opens the possibility of criminalization of
conversion and therefore certainly raises concern about the right to freedom of religion or belief as protected by universally accepted human rights standards.

In addition, besides the legal aspects, the prohibition of conversion also appears to be well rooted in certain minds, especially of those who follow the principles of Islam strictly. A number of Muslim religious leaders whom the Special Rapporteur met categorically rejected the
possibility of permitting Muslims to convert or to change their religion. They stated clearly that such persons should be executed. At the same time, they also contended that a Muslim woman could not marry a non-Muslim man. Such a marriage would be null and void in law and
constitute the offence of zina. This means that interfaith marriages would no longer be possible in the states that have adopted sharia penal codes and that interfaith couples visiting those states would risk arrest and conviction.

The Special Rapporteur has also been informed of a number of cases where Muslim or Christian girls were allegedly “abducted” by members of the other religious community and forced into marriage. While she has not been able to confirm these allegations, she considers it
an obligation of the Government, at least at the local level, to ensure that consent to marriage is free. More generally, and in order to guarantee the - often claimed - multireligious character of Nigeria, there is a need to protect the right to freedom of religion or belief in this respect."

Document(s): Open document