By Smart Chuks
The Kano State Government has firmly rejected a landmark judgment of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice that faulted key provisions of the state’s blasphemy laws, insisting that the legislation remains essential to preserving religious harmony, public order, and the moral foundations of its society.
In a strong response that underscores the growing tension between international human rights norms and Nigeria’s complex federal and religious landscape, Kano authorities made it clear that external judicial pronouncements would not override laws they say reflect the will and values of their predominantly Muslim population.
Kano’s Position: Local Values Over External Pressure
Speaking through the Commissioner for Information and Internal Affairs, Ibrahim Garba Waiya, the state government maintained that Kano would continue to enforce its blasphemy provisions, which operate under both the Penal Code and the Sharia Penal Code applicable in the state.
According to Waiya, the government’s primary responsibility is to its people, not international institutions.
He argued that Kano’s laws are deeply rooted in the social, moral, and religious realities of the state, stressing that these realities cannot be divorced from governance in a federal system such as Nigeria’s.
While acknowledging Nigeria’s international obligations, the commissioner emphasized that states retain constitutional powers to enact laws that reflect their unique cultural and religious contexts. In Kano’s view, the ECOWAS Court’s ruling risks undermining this federal balance.
The ECOWAS Court Ruling Explained
The dispute follows a judgment delivered by a three-member panel of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, led by Justice Ricardo Gonçalves, with Justices Sengu Koroma and Dupe Atoki concurring.
The Court ruled that specific provisions of Kano State’s blasphemy laws violate internationally protected rights to freedom of expression. In particular, it held that Section 210 of the Kano State Penal Code and Section 382(b) of the Kano State Sharia Penal Code Law of 2000 are incompatible with Article 9(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—both of which Nigeria has ratified.
The case, marked ECW/CCJ/APP/41/23, was filed by the Incorporated Trustees of Expression Now Human Rights Initiative, a Nigerian rights advocacy group. The applicants argued that the laws criminalize religious expression, encourage abuse of state power, and expose accused persons to severe penalties, including death sentences.
In its judgment, the Court ordered the Nigerian government to repeal or amend the offending provisions and ensure that similar laws across the country conform to international human rights standards.
Human Rights Concerns and National Implications
Human rights organisations have welcomed the ruling, describing it as a significant step toward safeguarding freedom of expression and protecting religious minorities. They argue that blasphemy laws, as currently enforced in parts of northern Nigeria, have been used to silence dissent, justify prolonged detentions, and inflame mob violence.
The Court acknowledged these concerns but stopped short of holding the Nigerian state responsible for failing to prevent mob attacks linked to blasphemy allegations, noting that media reports alone did not meet the legal threshold required to establish state liability.
Still, the judgment places Nigeria in a delicate position internationally. Failure to comply could attract reputational damage and raise questions about the country’s commitment to treaties it has voluntarily signed.
Federalism, Sharia, and a Legal Grey Area
Kano’s defiance highlights a longstanding legal and constitutional dilemma in Nigeria: how to reconcile international human rights obligations with domestic laws shaped by religion and local customs.
Since the reintroduction of Sharia law in several northern states in the early 2000s, blasphemy-related prosecutions have remained among the most controversial aspects of Nigeria’s justice system. Supporters argue they are necessary to prevent unrest and protect deeply held beliefs, while critics say they undermine constitutional guarantees and international law.
Legal analysts note that while ECOWAS Court judgments are binding on member states, enforcement ultimately depends on the political will of national governments. This means the federal government, not Kano State alone, bears responsibility for responding to the ruling—potentially setting the stage for a fresh confrontation between Abuja, state governments, and international institutions.
What Happens Next
For now, Kano State shows no sign of backing down. Officials insist that the blasphemy laws remain “legally grounded and socially necessary,” framing their stance as a defence of democracy at the local level.
However, pressure is mounting on the Federal Government of Nigeria to act. Compliance with the ECOWAS ruling could require delicate negotiations with states operating Sharia-based legal systems, while non-compliance risks diplomatic fallout and further legal challenges.
As Nigeria navigates this complex crossroads of faith, law, and international accountability, the Kano blasphemy law controversy has once again exposed the fragile balance between unity and diversity in Africa’s most populous nation.
About the Author
Smart Chuks is a Nigerian journalist and media analyst with a focus on law, governance, and human rights across Nigeria and West Africa. He writes extensively on issues shaping democracy, security, and civil liberties in the region.
