ECOWAS blog

The Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) ruled on Wednesday that the blasphemy provisions in Kano State law violate Nigeria’s international human rights commitments. In its landmark judgment in the Incorporated Trustees of Expression Now Human Rights Initiative v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (ECW/CCJ/APP/41/23), the Court found these laws incompatible with freedom of expression protections guaranteed under regional and international human rights instruments.

Case Background

The Incorporated Trustees of Expression Now Human Rights Initiative, a Nigerian NGO, filed the public interest case challenging blasphemy laws that have led to serious human rights concerns across Nigeria. The organization documented cases where individuals faced arbitrary arrest, detention, and death sentences merely for alleged blasphemous expression.

The application also highlighted incidents of vigilante justice, where accused persons were killed by mobs with apparent impunity. The NGO contended that Nigeria failed in its obligation to protect citizens’ fundamental rights to life, religious freedom, and freedom of expression by maintaining these laws and failing to prevent related violence.

Court’s Ruling on Jurisdiction and Admissibility

The ECOWAS Court confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the case under its established mandate in Article 9(4) of its Protocol to address human rights violations within member states. While accepting jurisdiction, the Court narrowed the scope of the challenge, permitting only the freedom of expression claims to proceed. Claims regarding rights to life and religious freedom were deemed inadmissible as private rights that cannot be pursued through public interest litigation. (actio popularis).

Judgment on the Merits

In its ruling, the ECOWAS Court struck down two key blasphemy provisions in Kano State law as violations of international human rights standards. The Court specifically identified Section 210 of the Kano State Penal Code as vague, failing to provide clear guidance on what constitutes religious insult and therefore lacking the legal precision required under international human rights standards.

The Court further declared Section 382(b) of the Kano State Sharia Penal Code Law (2000), which imposes the death penalty for insulting the Prophet Muhammad, as “excessive and disproportionate” in a democratic society.

Though recognizing states’ legitimate interest in maintaining public order and respecting religious beliefs, the Court determined that these laws fail the established human rights tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality under both Article 9(2) of the  African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Regarding allegations of state failure to prevent blasphemy-related mob violence, the Court found insufficient evidence to support these claims, noting that media reports without additional corroboration did not meet the required standard of proof.

Court Orders

Accordingly, the Court:

• Declared that it has jurisdiction to hear the case;
• Declared the application admissible only as it concerns the right to freedom of expression;
• Declared that Section 210 of the Kano State Penal Code and Section 382(b) of the Kano State Sharia Penal Code Law (2000) are incompatible with Nigeria’s obligations to protect freedom of expression;
• Ordered the Federal Republic of Nigeria to repeal or amend the identified legal provisions and similar laws to align with Article 9(2) of the African Charter.

Judicial Panel

The judgment was rendered by a panel comprising:

• Hon. Justice Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves (Presiding Judge)
• Hon. Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma (Member)
• Hon. Justice Dupe Atoki (Judge Rapporteur)