In a writ of execution signed by Yaouza Ouro-Sama, chief registrar of the Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS, the court wrote: ?By this Writ, the Court is requesting the enforcement of its decision in respect of the matter against the Respondent, the Federal Republic of Nigeria.?

The court had declared the provisions of both Section 210 of the Penal Code of Kano State and Section 382 (b) of Kano State Sharia Penal Code Law of 2000 as incompatible, with the obligation of the Nigerian government to guarantee the freedom of expression pursuant to Article 9 (2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples? Rights.

The court consequently ordered the Nigerian government to repeal or amend the provisions of both Section 210 of the Penal Code of Kano State and Section 382(b) of Kano State Sharia Penal Code Law of 2000, as well as other similar provisions in its laws, to bring them in complaince with its obligations in Article 9 (2) of the African Charter of Human and Peoples? Rights, and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

A digital right lawyer and human rights activist, Mr Solomon Okedara, initiated an action in October 2023 at the ECOWAS Court challenging perennial violations of the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of religion, and the right to life on the ground of blasphemy within the territory of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Nigeria is a signatory to the African Charter on Human and People?s Rights (ACHPR). The nation also ratified and domesticated it as a local law as the African Charter on Human and People?s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9) LFN 2004.

The action challenged the consistent use and/or failure to prevent the use of criminal provisions bordering on the offence of blasphemy to arrest, arbitrarily detain, unlawfully prosecute, imprison and impose death sentence on citizens by the Nigerian government. It also challenged the failure of the Nigerian government to prevent extra-judicial killing of citizens on the allegation of blasphemy, which are clear violations of Nigeria government?s obligations under the ACHPR, ICCPR, UNCAT and other international instruments.

The Nigerian government?s defence was essentially that the specific laws being challenged were constituent state laws and not federal laws and that when any law of a state or federal government was inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution (which guarantees fundamental rights), challenge to against such laws should lie to a national court in Nigeria and not the ECOWAS Court.

The Nigerian government urged the court to dismiss the suit or strike it out for want of jurisdiction and for lack of merit. However, the court ruled that it had jurisdiction to entertain the action and ruled the action admissible. The court also declared that Section 210 of the Kano State Penal Code and Section 382(b) of the Kano State Sharia Penal Code Law (2000) were incompatible with Nigeria?s obligations to protect freedom of expression. The court consequently 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.

In an interview, Okedara said: ?It is important for you to note that while the court does not generally concern itself with domestic legislation of a member state, whenever there is an allegation that a domestic legislation of a member state is at variance with international law, particularly provisions of an international instrument which the member state has ratified, the court is bound to review such domestic legislation.? (BusinessDay)

Update news