The Kano State government has rejected the judgement of the ECOWAS Court of Justice, which recently ruled that blasphemy laws as applied in the state were inconsistent with international human rights standards.
LEADERSHIP reports that in its April 9 judgement, the ECOWAS Court held that the provisions on blasphemy under the Kano State Sharia Penal Code and Penal Code Law violated the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed under regional and international frameworks. The sub-regional court further directed the Federal Government of Nigeria to amend or repeal the legal provisions to align with Article 9(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
But, responding to the verdict, the Kano State government said it remained committed to the promotion of fundamental rights and respect for the rule of law, but insisted that it has a “constitutional and moral obligation to uphold religious sanctity, maintain public order, and preserve the faithful values of its predominantly Muslim population.”
Commissioner for Information and Internal Affairs, Ibrahim Garba Waiya, in a statement released through his media aide, Bashir A. Bashir, stressed that the blasphemy laws in Kano State were enacted under constitutional authority. “Section 4(7) of the 1999 Constitution empowers State Houses of Assembly to legislate on matters within the Concurrent Legislative List, including criminal law,” he said. “Kano State’s Sharia Penal Code (2000), including Section 382(b), was enacted in compliance with the Constitution and with full legislative authority and popular mandate.”
The State government added that the state’s legal framework reflects the reality of Nigeria’s legal pluralism, which allows sub-national units to craft laws according to their social, cultural, and religious contexts. “This is not an aberration but a recognition of legal pluralism, a hallmark of Nigeria’s federal system,” the statement noted.
While the ECOWAS Court framed its ruling around the right to freedom of expression, Kano State argued that such rights are not absolute. “It is a settled principle of both domestic and international law that freedom of expression is not limitless,” the statement read.
Citing Article 19(3) and Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the State government pointed out that international law allows restrictions to protect public order, morals, and the rights of others.
The statement also referenced international precedents to bolster its position, including the European Court of Human Rights ruling in Wingrove v. UK (1996), which upheld the UK’s blasphemy law as consistent with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. “Hence, Nigeria—and by extension, Kano State—has every right to restrict expressions that offend deeply held religious beliefs, particularly those concerning the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), whose honour is held inviolable in Islam,” it said.
The statement further questioned the legal weight of the ECOWAS Court judgement within Nigeria’s legal system. “The ECOWAS Court does not have supremacy over Nigeria’s Constitution,” the statement asserted. “Section 1(3) of the Constitution of Nigeria declares that any law or decision inconsistent with the Constitution is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency.”
The government cited SERAP v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2010), arguing that international judgments and treaties are unenforceable in Nigeria unless domesticated through the National Assembly as required by Section 12 of the Constitution.
Despite the robust defence of its blasphemy laws, the Kano State government acknowledged the need to prevent abuse. “All blasphemy prosecutions are now subjected to rigorous legal scrutiny and must be approved by the Attorney General before trial,” the statement revealed. “No arrest should occur without credible evidence and legal justification.”
To ensure fair application of the laws, the government said it is organizing judicial training workshops and expanding interfaith dialogue platforms. “We must ensure that religious laws are not enforced through mob justice or personal vendetta, but through proper judicial and legal institutions,” the statement emphasized.
The Kano State Government reiterated its position that protecting religious sanctity is a legitimate function of the state. “We will not allow religious liberty to be weaponized as a cover for sacrilege, insult, and provocation,” the statement said.
