The Supreme Court says no Muslim, or anyone else, has the right to kill another without a court judgment.

My Lord the Hon. Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad JSC, who is now the Chief Justice of Nigeria, made an interesting statement. He said:

“The Islamic religion is not a primitive religion that allows its followers to break the law and commit jungle justice.
Instead, Islam has a judicial system that hears and decides cases, including criminal cases, and anyone accused of committing a crime against the religion or against a fellow Muslim should be brought before a court (either a Sharia or a common law court) for adjudication. Only after a person has been found guilty and sentenced by a court of law will he be subject to a punishment that will be carried out by a competent authority (in prison).”

“Although there is a provision in Risala that prescribes the death penalty for any Muslim who insults the Holy Prophet,” he continued, “such punishment can only be imposed by the appropriate authority (i.e. the court), not by any member of the society, whether a Muslim or not.”

The relevant provision is as follows: ‘If someone speaks disrespectfully of the Messenger of God (sabb-an-nabiy), he should be put to death without accepting his repentance,’ according to the “Risala (treatise on Maliki law)” translated and annotated by Joseph Kenny – Chapter 37, paragraph 37.19, page 173.

“37.01 No one may be put to death for homicide unless he is convicted… (1) adequate testimony (bayyinat) or (2) his own admission (lgrar), or (3) as sworn indictment (qasama) if that is necessary…” says the first paragraph of the chapter.

It’s also worth noting that in the Risala, the chapter immediately following chapter 37 (i.e. chapter 38) provides for “procedure and accessibility” In the following chapter, it is made very clear that judges make decisions on cases, including criminal cases, based on testimony or evidence (bayyina), admission (Iqrar), or oath (Yamin) – see Aththamarud Dani (Commentary on Risala) pages 604-707…

All of the above explanations of the Risala rule relied on by the appellants in their action demonstrate that it is the responsibility of the Judge (who is qualified to adjudicate) or the court of law to apply the judgement.

He went on to say that the Accused were nothing more than a bunch of bloodthirsty militants or religious fundamentalists who were all out to exact revenge on the deceased.

According to him, “In my opinion, it is the appellants, not the deceased, who have committed an offence against Islam or Sharia by their unjustified actions, which portray Sharia as an uncivilised and primitive system that allows or permits the killing of people without due process of law.

The Supreme Court sentenced Shalla and his friends to death for killing Abdullar on the grounds that he insulted the Holy Prophet.

Each of them described their roles in detail. The 3rd accused admitted striking the deceased in the neck with a matchet, the 5th accused admitted slaughtering the deceased with a knife, the 6th accused admitted holding and pulling the deceased to the final destination, the 1st accused admitted giving the authority to kill the deceased, and the 2nd and 4th accused admitted going up and down to make sure the deceased was punished. They were all given death sentences.

All those who actively or passively support the murder of Deborah Yakubu in Sokoto, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision, should face this fate.