Political Shari'a?':
Human Rights and Islamic Law in Northern Nigeria
Summary
[Excerpts. For full text and full 111-page report, see Human Rights Northern Nigeria
Since 2000, twelve states in northern Nigeria have added criminal
law to the jurisdiction of Shari'a (Islamic law) courts. Shari'a
has been in force for many years in northern Nigeria, where the
majority of the population is Muslim, but until 2000, its scope was
limited to personal status and civil law. The manner in which
Shari'a has been applied to criminal law in Nigeria so far has
raised a number of serious human rights concerns. It has also
created much controversy in a country where religious divisions run
deep, and where the federal constitution specifies that there is no
state religion. Shari'a is seen by many Muslims as an entire system
of guidelines and rules which encompass criminal law, personal
status law, and many other aspects of religious, cultural, and
social life. There are several different schools of thought and
within each of these, different interpretations of the provisions
of Shari'a. Human Rights Watch does not advocate for or against
Shari'a per se, or any other system of religious belief or
ideology; nor do we seek to judge or interpret the principles of
any religion or faith. We are simply concerned about human rights
violations resulting from the implementation of any legal system,
in any country.
This report does not attempt to study the Shari'a system as a
whole. It concentrates on Shari'a in the sphere of criminal law as
applied in northern Nigeria and identifies specific aspects of the
legislation and practices which have led or are likely to lead to
violations of human rights. Some of these practices violate what
many Muslims consider to be Shari'a's own rules and principles, as
well as provisions within the Nigerian constitution. The report
makes recommendations to the Nigerian federal and state governments
for reforming these aspects to ensure conformity with the
international and regional human rights standards and conventions
which Nigeria has ratified.
The provisions for and imposition of sentences amounting to cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, in particular the
death penalty, amputations and floggings, are among the main human
rights concerns arising in the context of Shari'a in northern
Nigeria. Since 2000, at least ten people have been sentenced to
death by Shari'a courts; dozens have been sentenced to amputation;
and floggings are a regular occurrence in many locations in the
north. Human Rights Watch is unconditionally opposed to the use of
the death penalty, in any legal system and in any country, as it
constitutes the ultimate violation of the right to life and an
extreme form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Human
Rights Watch is also unconditionally opposed to other cruel and
degrading punishments, some of which, such as amputations,
constitute torture.
Of equal concern is the lack of respect for due process which has
characterized many trials in Shari'a courts. The main failings
documented by Human Rights Watch include defendants' lack of access
to legal representation; the failure of judges to inform defendants
of their rights and grant them these rights; the courts' acceptance
of statements extracted under torture; and the inadequate training
of Shari'a court judges which has resulted in these and other
abuses. The practice of convicting defendants on the basis of
confessions alone is particularly worrying in the light of
well-documented torture by the police, other forms of pressure
exerted on defendants by police, prosecution officials and others,
and widespread corruption in the judiciary. Almost all the victims
of these abuses have been vulnerable men and women from poor
backgrounds who have little or no knowledge of their rights or of
legal procedures, or who lack the financial means to obtain legal
assistance, even when they know they are entitled to it. ... Human
Rights Watch believes that had Shari'a court judges followed due
process and had defendants had full legal representation, many of
these death sentences and amputation sentences would never have
been passed especially in view of the safeguards which exist within
Shari'a against harsh and unfair sentencing.
Human Rights Watch is also concerned at provisions within Shari'a
that discriminate against women, both in law and in practice, and
other patterns of human rights violations against women in this
context. Some of these violations do not stem directly from the
legislation itself, but from the way it has been used and from a
climate of intolerance which has accompanied the introduction of
the new legislation.
Human Rights Watch's research into the application of Shari'a in
Nigeria has revealed patterns of fundamental human rights
violations which are not peculiar to Shari'a but typify the human
rights situation in Nigeria as a whole. For example, systematic
torture by the police, prolonged detention without trial,
corruption in the judiciary, political interference in the course
of justice, and impunity for those responsible for abuses occur not
only in the context of Shari'a cases, but are at least as
widespread in cases handled by the parallel common law system.
Indeed, Human Rights Watch's concerns about the state of Nigeria's
justice system are not limited to those areas where Shari'a is in
force. In the south and other parts of the country where Shari'a is
not in application, grave human rights problems persist. Human
Rights Watch has reported extensively on those concerns in other
reports, and is continuing to monitor and raise these issues with
the Nigerian authorities. The information and views in this report
are based on several months of research by Human Rights Watch in
2003, including in five northern states (Kaduna, Kano, Kebbi,
Niger, Zamfara), and discussions in these and other parts of
Nigeria with a wide range of people, including defendants tried by
Shari'a courts, lawyers, court officials, federal and state
government officials, members of the hisbah (Shari'a enforcement
groups), human rights organizations, women's organizations, and
other members of civil society, Muslim and Christian religious
leaders, academics, and many other men and women directly or
indirectly affected by the application of Shari'a. Most of those
interviewed were northerners and Muslims, from different
backgrounds and with a range of views on the question of Shari'a
and the manner in which it is being applied. We also sought the
views of a number of non-Muslims and people from other parts of
Nigeria. In view of the high level of international attention which
has already surrounded the cases of Safiya Husseini and Amina
Lawal, two women sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, Human
Rights Watch has chosen to concentrate in this report on some of
the lesser-known cases where the violations of the rights of
defendants have been equally serious but have received less public
attention. ...
With the exception of state government officials and some
conservative Muslim leaders, the majority of people interviewed by
Human Rights Watch expressed their dissatisfaction with the manner
in which Shari'a was being applied in Nigeria. Many had initially
supported its introduction and continued to profess their
commitment to Shari'a, but explained that they were disillusioned
with the way in which it had become politicized in the hands of
state government officials. The result, in their words, was that
the Shari'a in application was not "proper Shari'a," but "political
Shari'a." They doubted the sincerity of state governors in
introducing Shari'a and complained about politicians' failure to
implement the economic and social aspects, pointing to the
continuing poverty across northern Nigeria and the absence of
visible improvements in their daily lives.
Human Rights Watch takes no position on what constitutes "proper
Shari'a," but our own research confirmed the view that Shari'a has
been manipulated for political purposes, and that this
politicization of religion has led to further human rights
violations beyond those already contained in some of the
legislation. As explained in this report, there is little doubt
that most of the governors who introduced Shari'a into their states
did so primarily for political reasons, in order to secure votes
and increase their popularity. They have been prepared to overlook
and even sanction human rights violations for the sake of their own
political ambitions. They have disregarded the more compassionate
and generous aspects of the philosophy which many Muslims believe
underlie Shari'a, both in the criminal justice sphere and in the
economic sphere.
Since around 2002, the application of Shari'a appears to have lost
steam in northern Nigeria. Shari'a legislation is still in place in
twelve states and Shari'a courts are continuing to function and
hand down sentences; but the political will to be seen to be
enforcing it in a strict manner has waned.
...
It would appear that the combination of external pressure and
domestic disillusion with the manner in which Shari'a has been
implemented has had the effect of dampening the politicians' zeal:
they have realized that their strategy of using Shari'a as a quick
way to boost their popularity is no longer politically viable,
particularly because it has made them unpopular among
constituencies upon whom they had relied for support.
Human Rights Watch believes that the time is right for the Nigerian
federal and state governments to re- evaluate the application of
Shari'a, now that it has been in operation for several years.
Whatever the political considerations some of which are described
in this report federal as well as state government officials have
a responsibility to ensure that the application of Shari'a does not
lead to human rights violations. In practice, this would mean
amending aspects of the Shari'a legislation and removing those
provisions which constitute inherent violations of fundamental
rights, including discrimination against women. But it also means
implementing less controversial measures, such as ensuring that all
defendants are fully informed of their rights, particularly the
right to legal counsel, and that judges are properly trained before
taking on criminal cases, particularly those cases involving death
sentences or corporal punishments. ...
This report also contains recommendations to the international
community. The volatile politics surrounding Shari'a have attracted
significant attention both inside and outside Nigeria. In
particular, the cases of Safiya Husseini and Amina Lawal, two women
sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, captured the public
imagination at the international level and were the subject of
massive publicity. Some of this media coverage has been
ill-informed, selective, and sensationalist. Human Rights Watch
believes that action on the part of foreign governments,
international organizations, foreign media and others can be
instrumental in leading to human rights reforms in Nigeria, if it
is based on an accurate assessment of the situation. The
disproportionate amount of international attention on Shari'a has
led to the erroneous perception that this is the only, and the
worst, human rights problem in Nigeria. Yet there are numerous
other human rights violations in Nigeria which are at least as
serious and deserve urgent attention on the part of the
international community. Thousands of people have been killed in
inter-communal conflicts or in massacres by the Nigerian army;
extrajudicial killings and torture by the police are routine across
Nigeria; and more than two thirds of the prison population have not
even been tried. Human Rights Watch urges readers of this report to
extend their concern about Shari'a to some of these other problems,
which have been documented in detail by Nigerian and international
human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch.
*************************************************************
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with
a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.
AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see http://www.africafocus.org>http://www.africafocus.org
