The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) has urged the Federal Government to uphold a recent ruling by the ECOWAS Court of Justice, which deemed certain aspects of Kano State’s Sharia law, notably those concerning blasphemy, to be in violation of international human rights standards. The court specifically identified Section 382(b) of the Kano State Penal and Sharia Penal Codes, which mandates the death penalty for insulting Prophet Muhammad, as “excessive and disproportionate in a democratic society.” This judgment, delivered in response to a suit challenging the compatibility of these laws with global and regional human rights frameworks, directed the Nigerian government to amend or repeal the offending provisions, as well as any similar legislation, to align with established international legal norms.
The Kano State Government, however, has contested the ECOWAS Court’s decision, asserting its autonomy to legislate based on local religious and cultural values within Nigeria’s federal system. The state government contends that its authority to enact laws reflecting local social, moral, and religious contexts is derived from the people of Kano, who have entrusted them with the responsibility of preserving peace and safeguarding their religious values. They maintain that these laws are integral to fulfilling that mandate and will remain in effect. This stance has set the stage for a potential conflict between state and federal authority, as well as between religious values and international legal obligations.
Reverend John Hayab, Chairman of CAN in the 19 northern states and Abuja, emphasized Nigeria’s obligation, as a signatory to ECOWAS treaties and currently holding the chairmanship of the regional bloc, to respect and implement the court’s decision. He cautioned against selectively adhering to international and national laws, underscoring that no individual state possesses the constitutional power to supersede Nigeria’s collective legal commitments. Hayab likened the situation to Nigeria’s membership in the United Nations, emphasizing the importance of abiding by the agreements and treaties inherent in such affiliations. He argued against the notion of states placing themselves above the federation, highlighting the potential for similar conflicts to arise with other laws in the future if the principle of federal supremacy isn’t upheld in this case.
Hayab further stressed that religious laws, whether Christian or Muslim, must not conflict with the Nigerian Constitution and international agreements. He expressed his willingness to support the abolishment of any Christian law that contradicts the collective laws of the land, emphasizing the importance of upholding the secular nature of the Nigerian state as enshrined in the constitution. He pointed out the hypocrisy of challenging the ECOWAS Court’s authority while Nigeria, as a member state, contributes to its funding and operations. He underscored the need to prioritize national interests above religious sentiments, highlighting the potential for such sentiments to undermine national unity if allowed to supersede constitutional principles.
The cleric’s call for patriotism and national unity resonated with other voices advocating for the supremacy of the constitution and international law. Rivers in the Desert Nigeria, a human rights advocacy group, echoed Hayab’s sentiments, urging the Kano State Government to immediately repeal the controversial blasphemy law in compliance with the ECOWAS Court’s verdict. The organization emphasized the unreasonableness of enforcing religious laws that undermine the constitution and individual freedoms in a pluralistic nation. They further called on the Federal Government to fulfill its duty to enforce the ECOWAS ruling, setting a precedent for upholding international human rights standards within Nigeria.
In conclusion, the ECOWAS Court’s ruling on Kano State’s Sharia law has ignited a complex debate on the interplay of religious freedom, state autonomy, and adherence to international legal obligations within Nigeria’s federal structure. The Kano State Government’s resistance to the ruling reflects a strong commitment to local religious and cultural values, while CAN’s advocacy for upholding the court’s decision underscores the importance of aligning with international human rights standards and maintaining the supremacy of the constitution. The ongoing discourse necessitates a careful balancing of these potentially conflicting principles to ensure the protection of both religious freedom and fundamental human rights for all citizens, while preserving the unity and stability of the nation. The Federal Government’s response to this situation will be crucial in setting the tone for future interactions between religious laws, state autonomy, and international legal obligations within Nigeria.
