269/03 : INTERIGHTS (on behalf of Safia Yakubu Husaini et al) /
Nigeria
Summary of Facts
1. The complaint is filed by INTERIGHTS on behalf of Safiya Yakubu Husaini and others who have
been allegedly subjected to gross and systematic violations of fair trial and due process rights in
the Sharia Courts in Nigeria.
2. The Complainant alleges that Ms Safiya Hussaini, a Nigerian woman and nursing mother was
sentenced to death by stoning by a Sharia Court in Gwadabawa, Sokoto State, Nigeria, for an alleged
crime of adultery, which sentence was the latest in a series of serious and massive violations of the
right to fair trial and associated guarantees.
3. The Complainant alleges that Safiya’s case is only one of the many cases to be decided under the
recently introduced pieces of Sharia penal legislation in northern Nigerian States. All laws in Nigeria, at
both Federal and State levels, ought to be compatible with both the [C]onstitution of 1999 and
international (including regional) treaties ratified by Nigeria, and are required to particularly comply
with the African Charter which is domestic law in the country.
4. In its complaints, the Complainant also enumerates other similar instances of alleged violations of
fair trial, personal dignity and the right to life. It alleged that in December 2002, a Ms Hafsatu Abubakar
from Sokoto State was charged with ‘zina’, which is either voluntary premarital sexual intercourse or, if
the person is married, to [sic] adultery.
th
5. On 19 January 2001, an unmarried woman called Bariya Magazu received 100 lashes in Zamfara
State for having committed the offence of ‘zina’[i]. Ms Magazu was also initially convicted of false
accusation for failing to prove her declaration that three particular men had coerced her into having
sexual intercourse, which men were not prosecuted. By an order of an Islamic Court in the same
th
State, a Mr Umaru Bubeh received 80 strokes of the cane on 9 March 2001 for drinking alcohol. On
th
4 May 2001, a Mr Lawal Incitara’s hand was amputated after a [i]Sharia Court in same state found
him guilty of stealing bicycles.
6. In Sokoto State, Sani Shehu and Garga Dandare were sentenced to have their right hands and left
th
feet amputated after being convicted by a Sharia Court in Sokoto State on 20 December 2001. On
th
27 December 2001, the Upper Sharia Court in the same State convicted a Mr Aminu Bello of theft
and sentenced him to have his right hand amputated.
7. The Complainant alleges that in none of these cases did the victims/accused persons receive, nor
were they offered, competent or any legal representation. The rights of legal representation in
the Sharia Courts are very limited and, even where they allow legal representation, only lawyers who
are Muslims can practice in them.
8. It is further alleged that the new Sharia penal legislations that are adopted in the various Nigeria
States contain specifications that limit their application to people of Muslim faith but they dispense with
all the fair trial safeguards recognised in the African Charter. Moreover, unlike in other criminal cases
where accused persons are able to appeal to the Nigerian Supreme Court, which is the highest court
in the country, appeals in the Sharia criminal cases end before the special Sharia Courts of Appeal. In
effect, the Sharia penal legislation subjects persons of Muslim faith to lower standards of fair trial
merely by reason of their faith. In all the cases regarding the application of Sharia law for criminal
cases, there is discrimination on grounds of the faith of the accused.
9. The complaint also alleges that the rights of those tried under Sharia law are protected to a lesser
extent than in the Penal Code for Northern Nigeria, valid for non-Muslim people, particularly
concerning the right of representation, the right of appeal and the lack of knowledge of criminal
procedure by the court. Under Sharialaw, the death penalty is applied for offences that are not
punishable with the death penalty under the Penal Code for Northern Nigeria. The criteria [sic] for
appointing judges to the same court also fails short of international standards of training judicial
personnel, and there is no requirement for judges to be legally qualified in law.
10. Together with its complaint, the Complainant submitted a request for provisional measures to the
African Commission in accordance with 1995 Rules of Procedure of the African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights, Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the African Commission.
Complaint
11. The Complainant alleges serious and massive violations of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 26 of the
African Charter.
Procedure
th
12. The complaint was dated 30 January 2002 and received at the Secretariat on 31st January
2002.
th
13. On 5 February 2002, the Secretariat of the African Commission wrote to the Complainant
acknowledging receipt of the complaint, and requesting the latter to forward the relevant information
and evidentiary materials on the developments surrounding the application of the Penal Provisions
of Sharia religious law before Nigerian Sharia Courts, and to forward to it complete and specific cases
of alleged irregularities supported by relevant documentations. The Complainant was also asked to
indicate to the [African] Commission which of the specific decisions of the Sharia Courts had been
executed, and which were pending.
th
14. On 6 February 2002, the Chairman of the African Commission addressed an urgent appeal to
His Excellency, President Olusegun Obasanjo of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, respectfully urging
him to suspend further implementation of theSharia penal statutes and decisions as well as
convictions thereof, including the case of Ms Safiya Yakubu, pending the outcome of the consideration
of the complaints before the African Commission.
15. On the same date, the Chairman of the African Commission addressed a similar Urgent Appeal
to His Excellency Amara Essy of the African Union, respectfully urging Him to draw the attention of the
President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the [African] Commission’s requests, and to positively
respond thereof.
th
16. On 8 February 2002, the Secretariat of the African Commission faxed a copy of the Chairman’s
Urgent Appeal to the High Commission of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in Banjul, The Gambia for
onward transmission of the same to His Excellency, President Olusegun Obasanjo of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria.
rd
17. On 3 March 2002, the Complainant wrote to the Secretariat informing the latter that it will
assemble as many of the documents as exist and would get back to the Secretariat on its progress.
th
18. On 7 March 2002, the Secretariat of the African Commission wrote to the Complainant
confirming receipt of the same and reminding the latter that it would be awaiting for [sic] the relevant
information.
th
19. On 19 March 2002, the Director of the Political Affairs Department of the African Union wrote to
the Chairman of the African Commission that the Secretary General of the African Union had formally
taken up the matter at the level of H.E. Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, President of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria. The Secretariat of the African Commission brought the same to the attention of the Chairman.
20. On 21st March 2002, the Chief of Staff to the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria wrote,
on behalf of H. E. President Olusegun Obasanjo, to the Chairman of the African Commission
acknowledging receipt of the Urgent Appeal and assuring him that the administration and many
Nigerians equally shared his concern. The letter further expressed his optimism that, in the long run,
justice would be done and Safiya’s life would be spared. While noting that the Federal Government
could not unilaterally suspend the Sharia Penal Statutes and decisions which were within the
prerogative of the State government in accordance with the Nigerian Constitution, the letter assured
the Chairman that the Administration would leave no stone unturned in ensuring that the right to life
and human dignity of Safiya, and that of all other Nigerians that may be affected in future were
adequately protected.
nd
21. On 2 April 2002, the Secretariat of the African Commission wrote to the Complainant reminding
it of the need for further information on Ms Amina Lawal who was alleged to have been sentenced to a
similar punishment by a Sharia Court in Katsina State. While informing the same of the pledge by the
Nigerian Administration regarding the case of Safiya and the follow up by the AU Secretary General,
the Secretariat reminded the Complainant that it still awaited for the submission of the documentation
and information as requested in its previous letters.
th
22. On 19 April 2002, the Political Affairs Department of the African Union wrote to the Secretariat of
the African Commission informing the latter of the decision by the Federal Court of Appeal in Nigeria
overturning the death sentence imposed on Safiya by a lower Court in Sokoto State thereby making
the need to make further Presidential intervention unnecessary.
23. During the 31st Ordinary Session held in Pretoria, South Africa in May 2002, the Complainant
orally informed the Secretariat that it was trying to compile the relevant information on the complaint
and that it would be best if the Secretariat waited for the same before further action on complaint.
th
24. On 27 August 2002, the Secretariat received a letter from the International Commission of
Jurists [ICJ] expressing its concern in the fate of Ms Amina Lawal and her child.
th
25. By a letter of 27 August 2002, the Secretariat informed the ICJ that the African Commission was
following the developments in Nigeria regarding the application of Sharia Penal Statutes in the
country, including and particularly, the case of Ms Lawal, through the appropriate channels.
nd
26. During the 32 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia in October 2002, the Complainant
orally informed the Secretariat that it was unable to compile the requested information in time, that it
was in touch with its local partners in Nigeria on the case and suggested the [African] Commission
went ahead in dealing with the complaint.
rd
27. During the intersession period before the 33 Ordinary Session, the Secretariat called the
Complainant to inquire about the progress it made and on the status of the cases pending before
national courts.
rd
28. At its 33 Ordinary Session held in Niamey, Niger from 15 to 29 May 2003, the African
Commission examined the complaint and decided to be seized thereof.
th
29. On 12 June 2003, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainants and Respondent State informing
them of this decision and requested them to forward their written submissions on admissibility before
th
the 34 Ordinary Session of the [African] Commission. A similar letter of reminder was sent out to the
th
th
parties on 6 August 2003 and on 17 October 2003.
th
th
th
31. At its 34 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia from 6 to 20 November 2003, the
African Commission examined the complaint and decided to defer its consideration on admissibility to
th
the 35 Ordinary Session.
th
32. On 9 December 2003, the Secretariat wrote to the parties informing them of this decision and
further requesting them to forward to the African Commission their written submissions on the
th
admissibility of the communication before the 35 Ordinary Session. The same was copied to the
Respondent State’s High Commission in Banjul, The Gambia.
th
33. The Secretariat sent a similar reminder to both parties on 29 April 2004 to send their written
th
submissions on the admissibility of the communication before the 35 Ordinary Session.
th
th
34. At its 35 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia from 21st May to 4 June 2004, the
African Commission examined the complaint and decided to defer its consideration on admissibility to
th
the 36 Ordinary Session.
35. At the same Ordinary Session, a copy of the complaint was handed over [to] the Nigerian
Delegation.
th
36. On 17 June 2004, the Secretariat wrote to the parties informing them of this decision and further
requesting them to forward to the African Commission their written submissions on the admissibility of
th
the communication before the 36 Ordinary Session. The same was copied to the Respondent State’s
High Commission in Banjul, The Gambia.
th
37. The Secretariat sent a similar reminder to both parties on 7 September 2004 to send their
th
written submissions on the admissibility of the communication before the 36 Ordinary Session.
th
rd
th
38. During the 36 Ordinary Session held in Dakar, Senegal from 23 November to 7 December
2004, the Complainant orally informed the Rapporteur of the communication of his [sic] wish to
withdraw the case.
39. At the same Ordinary Session, the African Commission decided to defer its decision on the
th
request for withdrawal to the 37 Ordinary Session, pending a written confirmation of the same by the
Complainant.
rd
40. On 23 December 2004, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainant and Respondent State
informing them of this decision and requesting the former to forward its written request for withdrawal
th
before the 37 Ordinary Session of the [African] Commission.
nd
th
41. A similar reminder was sent to the Complainant on 2 February and 4 Apri1 200[4].
th
th
th
42. During its 37 Ordinary Session held from 27 April to 11 May 2005 in Banjul, The Gambia, the
nd
African Commission received a written request for withdrawal from the Complainant dated 2 May
2005.
Holding
For the abovementioned reason, the African Commission takes note of the withdrawal of the
communication by the Complainant and decides to close the file.
th
th
Adopted by the African Commission at its 37 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia from 27 April to
th
11 May 2005.