The Supreme Court of Nigeria has granted Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, a musician sentenced to death for alleged blasphemy, the opportunity to file an appeal outside the legally prescribed timeframe. This decision comes after his legal team argued that his trial was fundamentally flawed, citing the lack of legal representation and the rushed nature of the proceedings.
Sharif-Aminu was convicted in 2020 by a sharia court in Kano State for allegedly making blasphemous remarks about the Prophet Muhammad. His lawyers argued that the trial was unfair, with only one day’s notice given before the judgment, which was delivered via Zoom. They contended that they needed more time to properly study the case and prepare their defense. In response, the Supreme Court granted the appeal and ordered an accelerated hearing for the case.
The defense also raised constitutional concerns, challenging the validity of sections of Kano State’s sharia law that prescribe capital punishment and amputation, arguing that these provisions conflict with Nigeria’s secular constitution. The lawyers believe that the death penalty for blasphemy is unconstitutional and violates the basic human rights guaranteed by Nigeria’s legal framework.
However, the Kano State government defended the original conviction, arguing that the musician’s actions were a serious affront to the religious beliefs of the Muslim population in the state. Lamido Abba Sorondinki, representing the Kano government, emphasized that the state’s government would not tolerate blasphemy and would carry out the death penalty if the Supreme Court upholds the original decision.
This case highlights the ongoing tension in Nigeria between religious law and the secular constitution, particularly in the northern region, where sharia law is widely enforced. Nigeria is divided between a largely Christian south and a predominantly Muslim north, with each region having distinct legal and cultural practices. Sharia law in Kano and other northern states includes severe punishments, including the death penalty for blasphemy, which contrasts with the country’s secular legal framework.
The outcome of Sharif-Aminu’s case could have broader implications for the relationship between religious laws and Nigeria’s constitution. While the country’s secular constitution is intended to ensure religious neutrality, the continuing enforcement of sharia law in the north raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between religion and the state.
