NIGERIA: ARBITRARY DETENTION OF SUFI MUSICIAN YAHAYA SHARIF-AMINU

The International League Against Arbitrary Detention urges the Government of Nigeria to take all the necessary actions to implement the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion No. 32/2024 concerning Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, asking the Government of Nigeria to immediately and unconditionally release him and to accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.

Read the full WGAD Opinion concerning Yahaya Sharif-Aminu (Nigeria): Opinion No. 32/2024.

ARRESTED AND SENTENCED TO DEATH FOR BLASPHEMY

Yahaya Sharif-Aminu is a Nigerian national of the Sufi minority. He is a musician and songwriter. He usually resides in Kano State, Nigeria. At the time of the detention, in 2020, he was about 22 years old. 

On 29 February 2020, Mr. Sharif-Aminu shared lyrics, reportedly expressing his religious beliefs, in Hausa language in a WhatsApp group. Some individuals perceived these messages as blasphemous and joined in front of Mr. Sharif-Aminu’s house, pushing him to hide. In or around the beginning of March 2020, these protests turned into a mob against Mr. Sharif-Aminu’s house and family, before the Kano State Hisbah police arrived and arrested Mr. Sharif-Aminu. Then, he was charged with blasphemy under section 382(b) of the Kano State Sharia Penal Code of 2000, which provides that it’s illegal for a Muslim to insult the Qur’an or any of its prophets.

Mr. Sharif-Aminu’s trial began on 20 March 2020, according to the source. He was convicted on 10 August 2020 for blasphemy under the previously mentioned section by the Hausawa Filin Hockey Upper-Sharia Court and sentenced to death.

On 3 September 2020, Mr. Sharif-Aminu appealed to the High Court of Kano State for procedural irregularities and to challenge the constitutionality of section 382 (b). The High Court ordered a retrial based on the procedural irregularities, an order that Mr. Sharif-Aminu sought to further appeal before the Kano State Court of Appeal on 25 January 2021. He argued that his case should have been dismissed for the procedural irregularities and because section 382(b) was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal received Mr. Sharif-Aminu’s appeal but upheld the retrial order, finding section 382(b) in line with the Constitution and that a retrial was justified.

On 9 November 2022, Mr. Sharif-Aminu filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of Nigeria, based on arguments that the case should be dismissed for procedural irregularities, the unconstitutionality of section 382(b), and the non-alignment of this section with international law and Nigeria’s international obligations. At the time of the source’s communication, no hearing date for the appeal had been set.

The Government was given the opportunity to contest the source’s allegations but chose not to do so.

NOT PROMPTLY BROUGHT BEFORE A JUDGE AND HELD INCOMMUNICADO

First, the source alleged that Mr. Sharif-Aminu was arrested in or around the beginning of March 2020 but was not presented to a judge before 20 March 2020. The Working Group recalled that the obligation under article 9 (3) of the Covenant provides that anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power, 48 hours representing an ordinary delay to satisfy this requirement.

Moreover, the source added that Mr. Sharif-Aminu was detained incommunicado from his arrest to the moment he filed an appeal to the High Court of Kano State. The Working Group recalled that incommunicado detention prevents prompt presentation before a judge and violates the right to challenge the lawfulness of the detention before a court, thus in violation of article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant.

The Working Group found that Mr. Sharif-Aminu was denied his rights to be promptly brought before a judge and to challenge the legality of his detention, his detention thus violating article 9 (3) and (4), and article 2 (3) of the Covenant and article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, his detention was arbitrary under category I.

DETAINED FOR EXERCISING HIS RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF OPINION AND EXPRESSION, AND OF RELIGION AND BELIEF

The source argued that Mr. Sharif-Aminu was detained for exercising his rights to freedom of religion and belief, and to freedom of opinion and expression. His case did not fall within the restrictions allowed by articles 18 and 19(3) of the Covenant, since he peacefully expressed his beliefs through music lyrics as part of a religious minority. The Working Group recalled the States’ obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill people’s right to practice their religion, including religions that are not in accordance with its official policy. The Working Group concluded that Mr. Sharif-Aminu was charged with blasphemy for conduct protected under the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, and to religion and belief. It was not convinced that Mr. Sharif-Aminu’s detention was justified by any legitimate restrictions on these rights, as provided by articles 18 (3) and 19 (3) of the Covenant.

The Working Group noted that Mr. Sharif-Aminu was sentenced to death under section 382 (b) of the Kano State Sharia Penal Code. It emphasized that, in states that haven’t yet abolished the death penalty, this sentence must only be applied to extremely grave crimes, and that lengthy prison sentences can have a chilling effect on the exercise of human rights.

As Mr. Sharif-Aminu’s deprivation of liberty violated articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Working Group found it arbitrary under category II.

DENIED ACCESS TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION

In light of its previous finding under category II, the Working Group noted that no trial should have taken place. However, one did take place, and with the retrial order from the High Court of Kano State, Mr. Sharif-Aminu could still be convicted and sentenced to death.

The source alleged Mr. Sharif-Aminu was denied legal representation during his trial and that he was able to speak directly to his lawyer only on 7 November 2020. As the High Court of Kano State ordered Mr. Sharif-Aminu retrial on the basis that he was denied legal assistance before and during his trial, and considering the Working Group’s previous finding that Mr. Sharif-Aminu was held incommunicado between his arrest and his trial, the Working Group concluded Mr. Sharif-Aminu was deprived of access to legal assistance after his arrest, in breach of article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant.

Therefore, his right to a fair trial was violated, and his detention fell under category III.

DISCRIMINATED ON THE BASIS OF RELIGIOUS FAITH

The Working Group, having established that Mr. Sharif-Aminu’s detention was due to the exercise of his rights protected under international law, recalled that there was a strong presumption that his deprivation of liberty violated international law for discrimination.

The source argued that section 382(b) was discriminatory for two reasons. First, this law threatens the death penalty for any Muslim who expresses a belief that diverges from the majority interpretation. In this case, the law discriminated against Mr. Sharif-Aminu as a member of a minority sect of Sufi Islam and for expressing opinions related to this sect's beliefs. The source explained that other Muslim Sufis had been prosecuted under the same blasphemy law in Kano State. Second, section 382(b) violates Article 26 of the Covenant, as non-Muslims face only a two-year prison sentence for insulting a religion under the Nigerian Criminal Code. This creates a distinction in treatment between non-Muslims and minority Muslims who express beliefs divergent from the majority interpretation of Islam.

In light of the above, the Working Group concluded that Mr. Sharif-Aminu was detained on discriminatory grounds based on his beliefs as a member of a religious minority, in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, rendering his detention arbitrary under category V.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE UN WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION

In light of the foregoing, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considered that the detention of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu was arbitrary and fell under categories I, II and V because his deprivation of liberty was in contravention of articles 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 18, 19 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Working Group recommended that the Government of Nigeria takes all the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Sharif-Aminu without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms. The Working group considered that, taking into account all circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release him immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.