- Landmark Ruling: ECOWAS Court says parts of Kano’s blasphemy laws are illegal.
- Why It Matters: It’s a fight between religious values and basic human rights.
- Kano’s Response: The state government is NOT happy and is digging in its heels.
- Big Picture: This could change how Nigeria balances its laws with international standards.
ECOWAS Court vs. Kano: The Blasphemy Battle Begins
On April 9, 2025, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered a groundbreaking judgment. They ruled that certain aspects of Kano State’s blasphemy laws in Nigeria clash with international human rights standards, specifically the right to freedom of expression.
This decision is causing major waves, highlighting the ongoing struggle to balance international human rights obligations with national laws, especially in regions like northern Nigeria where religion and cultural values are paramount.
What Did the Court Actually Say?
The ECJ specifically targeted Section 210 of the Kano State Penal Code and Section 382(b) of the Kano State Sharia Penal Code Law (2000). These sections make it a crime to insult religious figures, like the Prophet Muhammad.
The Court argued that these provisions are too vague and overly repressive, especially since they carry severe punishments like the death penalty. They violate the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression, according to Nigeria’s international commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The bottom line? Kano State has been ordered to change or scrap these laws to align with international legal standards.
Blasphemy Laws in Nigeria: A Powder Keg
Blasphemy laws are a hot-button issue in Nigeria, particularly in the twelve northern states where Sharia law operates alongside common law. These laws criminalize speech deemed insulting to Islam and its leaders.
Tragic events like the 2022 Sokoto State lynching of Deborah Samuel Yakubu, a student murdered for alleged blasphemous remarks, underscore the dangers. Similarly, Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, a musician, and Mubarak Bala, president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, faced severe penalties for expressing views deemed blasphemous.
These cases highlight the urgent need for Nigeria to strike a balance between religious sensitivity and the constitutional right to free speech. Legal reforms are crucial to protect human rights and prevent religiously motivated violence.
Kano State’s Defiant Stand
The Kano State Government isn’t backing down. They’ve rejected the ECJ’s ruling, arguing that their laws protect the moral and religious values of their majority Muslim population. According to Ibrahim Waiya, the Commissioner for Information and Internal Affairs, these laws reflect the state’s religious identity and must be preserved.
This stance reflects a broader resistance in northern Nigeria to any perceived challenge to Sharia law. It also raises serious questions about how effectively international human rights judgments can be enforced in Nigeria, especially when they clash with deeply held religious and cultural beliefs.
Can ECOWAS Court Rulings Even Be Enforced in Nigeria?
Enforcing ECJ judgments in Nigeria is complicated. While Nigeria has signed treaties recognizing the court, its constitution states that treaties only become law if adopted by the National Assembly. However, many ECOWAS protocols remain undomesticated, raising questions about their enforceability.
Despite this, the ECJ has argued that ratification creates binding international obligations, regardless of domestic incorporation. But the reality is that enforcement remains weak. A 2021 report revealed that over 70% of the Court’s judgments go unenforced in ECOWAS member states, with Nigeria being a major offender.
ECOWAS lacks a strong enforcement mechanism, relying on voluntary compliance, which undermines its authority.
Clash of Values: Human Rights vs. Cultural Relativism
The ECJ’s ruling highlights the tension between universal human rights (like freedom of speech) and cultural relativism, the idea that rights should be interpreted within the context of specific cultures or religions.
In Northern Nigeria, many view blasphemy laws as essential for maintaining Islamic morality and social order. The ECJ’s demand to abolish or reform these laws is seen as an attack on their core beliefs and identity.
This situation underscores the challenge of applying international human rights standards to sovereign states, especially federal states like Nigeria where subnational governments have considerable autonomy. While Nigeria has signed international agreements, implementing these rulings depends on domestic political will and institutional capacity.
Kano State’s refusal to comply demonstrates how international legal norms can be undermined by domestic politics, religious extremism, and nationalist sentiment.
The Way Forward: Recommendations for Nigeria
The ECJ’s judgment is a crucial step toward aligning Nigeria’s legal system with international human rights norms. But more needs to be done.
- Domestication of ECOWAS Protocols: The National Assembly should incorporate ECOWAS protocols into Nigerian law.
- Review Blasphemy Laws: Re-examine blasphemy laws to align with international human rights standards, balancing religious freedom with freedom of expression.
- Public Education: State actors and civil society should raise awareness about universal human rights and their application in multicultural societies.
- Strengthen ECOWAS Enforcement: ECOWAS should create a central authority to ensure member states comply with court decisions.
- Promote Dialogue: Encourage discussions among religious leaders, lawmakers, and human rights activists to bridge the gap between cultural practices and international legal norms.
By combining these efforts, Nigeria can fulfill its regional obligations and foster a culture of human rights protection throughout the country.
About The Author
