The Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has delivered a landmark ruling against Kano State’s blasphemy laws, declaring them a violation of international human rights obligations. This decision stems from a case brought forth by the Incorporated Trustees of Expression Now Human Rights Initiative against the Federal Republic of Nigeria, challenging the constitutionality of these laws. The core of the applicant’s argument rested on the assertion that these laws have led to a cascade of human rights infringements, including arbitrary arrests, prolonged detentions, and even death sentences. The application highlighted the chilling effect of blasphemy laws on freedom of expression and their role in instigating vigilante violence, often culminating in mob killings of individuals accused of blasphemy.
The ECOWAS Court, presided over by a three-member panel, meticulously examined the provisions of Kano State’s Penal Code and Sharia Penal Code. Their unanimous decision centered on two specific sections: Section 210 of the Penal Code and Section 382(b) of the Sharia Penal Code. The Court found Section 210 to be inherently flawed due to its vague definition of what constitutes an insult to religion. This lack of clarity, the Court argued, fails to meet the standards of legal precision required by international human rights law. Section 382(b), which prescribes the death penalty for insulting the Prophet Muhammad, was deemed excessively harsh and disproportionate within the context of a democratic society. The Court emphasized the importance of proportionality in sentencing, and the death penalty for blasphemy was judged to be an extreme and unjustified punishment.
The crux of the Court’s ruling lies in the delicate balance between a state’s legitimate interest in maintaining public order and respecting religious sensitivities, and the fundamental human right to freedom of expression. While acknowledging the state’s prerogative to uphold order and religious harmony, the Court underscored that these aims must not come at the expense of individuals’ fundamental rights. In this specific case, the ECOWAS Court found that Kano State’s blasphemy laws had failed to strike this crucial balance, tilting the scales too far towards the restriction of free speech.
Despite the gravity of the allegations regarding state-sanctioned violence, the Court refrained from concluding that the Nigerian government had directly failed to prevent mob violence related to blasphemy accusations. The Court acknowledged the seriousness of such violence, but stated that the evidence presented, primarily consisting of media reports, did not meet the stringent legal threshold required to establish state culpability. While media reports can shed light on events, the Court emphasized the need for more substantial, directly attributable evidence to prove state complicity in such acts.
The ECOWAS Court’s decision carries significant legal and social implications. Beyond declaring the specific provisions of Kano State law incompatible with international human rights obligations, the Court has ordered the Nigerian government to take concrete steps to rectify the situation. The order mandates the repeal or amendment of not only the identified sections but also any similar laws that infringe on the right to freedom of expression. This directive underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring compliance with international human rights standards across the region.
This ruling is a significant victory for advocates of human rights and freedom of expression. It sets a precedent for challenging blasphemy laws within the ECOWAS region and reinforces the importance of upholding international human rights standards. The case highlights the tension between freedom of expression and religious sensitivities, a tension that requires careful navigation to ensure the protection of fundamental rights. The ECOWAS Court’s decision serves as a strong reminder that while states have a legitimate interest in maintaining order, this interest cannot override individuals’ fundamental freedoms, especially the right to express their beliefs and opinions without fear of persecution or violence. The ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving blasphemy laws and reinforces the crucial role of regional human rights mechanisms in upholding international standards.
