Sharia Bill: Lawyer of Kano singer accused of blasphemy writes NASS

Kolapo Alapinni, the counsel to a Kano-based singer who was accused of blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad, has written to the National Assembly, complaining that his client has been unjustly detained for four years based on the Sharia law.

Mr Alapinni made his complaint in a letter dated 31 October, addressed to Senate President Godswill Akpabio and House Speaker Abbas Tajuddeen.

In the letter, he also urged the lawmakers not to support a bill seeking to expand the powers of Sharia law in some northern states.

The Kano singer, Aminu Yahaya-Sharif, was accused of committing blasphemy against the Prophet of Islam in a song he circulated via WhatsApp in March 2020.

He was sentenced to death in August 2020 by a Kano Upper Shari’a Court after he was found guilty based on Section 382 (b) of the Kano penal code of 2000.

But, a Kano State High Court later quashed the death sentence and ordered a retrial by the same Shariah court after Mr Yahaya-Sharif filed an appeal on the judgment.

Mr Yahaya-Sharif was still not satisfied. He instituted another appeal against the High Court judgement, arguing that he ought to have been discharged and acquitted instead of a retrial.

The Court of Appeal, however, upheld the lower court’s decision to order the case retried in the Shariah court.

The singer, still in detention, has gone to the Supreme Court to challenge the order for a retrial. The case is still at the Supreme Court.

Sharia law

In his letter, the lawyer urged the two presiding officers to use their offices to facilitate immediate judgement on the case at the Supreme Court.

Mr Alapinni also called on the members of the National Assembly’s two chambers to refrain from expanding Sharia law.

Last Thursday, a Rep member, Aliyu Missau, sponsored a bill seeking to expand Sharia law in affected states. The bill was rejected after a majority of the lawmakers opposed it through voice votes during the plenary.

The bill specifically seeks to amend sections 24, 262, 277, and 288 of the Nigerian constitution by removing the word “personal” wherever “Islamic law” is mentioned.

For instance, Section 262 (1) of the Nigerian constitution states that: “The Sharia Court of Appeal shall, in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, exercise such appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic personal law.”

The bill aimed to remove the word “personal” from the section, allowing “Islamic law” to stand alone.

In the letter, Mr Alapinni argued that if the expansion passes legislation, it will increase blasphemy cases in the northern states.

“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.

ALSO READ: Alleged Blasphemy: UN experts urge Nigerian govt to release Kano singer, Sharif-Aminu

“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,” he wrote.

The lawyer argued that for justice to prevail, members of the National Assembly must allow the Supreme Court to rule on the issue before any expansion.

He recommended that rather than expansion, the presiding officers of the two chambers should wait for the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“We hereby draw to your attention that this issue is sub judice. 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.”