“ADVOCATING FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, PUBLIC ORDER & EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW: A LEGAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO RELIGIOUS INSULT LAWS AND SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT UNDER NIGERIA’S CRIMINAL, PENAL, AND SHARIA LEGAL SYSTEMS”…by Uchenna Umez

By Comr. Uchenna Umez

Published on January 22, 2026

Section 382(b) of the Sharia Penal Code (Kano State) → Mandatory death sentence, has Sharia that address insults, not to God, but to the prophet and the scripture, often considered blasphemy, with penalties that can include death - a provision that has led to death sentences for individuals like Yahaya Sharif-Aminu and Sheikh Kabara, but has also been challenged by the ECOWAS Court as a violation of human rights and freedom of expression. It consequently raises a fundamental question: whether a religion’s prophet or scriptures are being elevated above God Himself, or whether the prophet of a religion or its scriptures are being afforded greater legal protection than God Himself. Both the Penal Code and Criminal Code, as well as the Sharia Penal Laws in the northern states, fail to define “insult” or “contempt,” relying instead on subjective notions of religious offense that invite arbitrary and selective enforcement.

Disclaimer: Umez is neither a Muslim nor a Christian, but a Nigerian guided by a conscientious commitment to reason, justice, and ethical reflection. His stance is fully protected under the constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience and thought, which is intrinsically interwoven with freedom of religion. This positioning underscores that the right to question, critique, or dissent from religious doctrines is not a rejection of faith itself but a fundamental exercise of the liberties every Nigerian—believer or non-believer—enjoys in a constitutional democracy. By situating himself as a conscientious citizen rather than a partisan religious actor, Umez exemplifies the principles of pluralism, equality before the law, and the inalienable right to intellectual and spiritual freedom.
INTRODUCTION: NIGERIA LEGAL FRAMEWORKS AND THE CORE HUMAN RIGHTS QUESTION

In today’s Nigeria, religious insults are criminalized under two main legal frameworks: the Criminal Code Act (applicable in Southern states) and the Penal Code Act (applicable in Northern states).
1. Criminal Code Act (Southern States)
• Section 204: Insult to a religion
“Any person who does an act which any class of persons consider as a public insult on their religion, with the intention that they should consider the act such an insult, and any person who does an unlawful act with the knowledge that any class of persons will consider it such an insult, is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable to imprisonment for two years.”
• Section 206: Disturbing religious worship
“Any person who wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, the proof of which lies on him, disquiets, or disturbs any meeting of persons lawfully assembled for religious worship, or assaults any person lawfully officiating at any such meeting, or any of the persons there assembled, is guilty of a simple offence, and is liable to imprisonment for two months, or to a fine of ten naira.”
2. Penal Code Act (Northern States)
• Section 210: Insulting or Exciting Contempt of Religious Creed [1]
“Whoever by any means publicly insults or seeks to incite contempt of any religion in such a manner as to be likely to lead to a breach of the peace, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with a fine of two thousand naira.”
• Section 213: Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings-Committing Trespass on Place of Worship or Burial
“Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person or of insulting the religion of any person or with the knowledge that the feeling of any person are likely to be wounded or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby commits any trespass in any …”
• 3. Sharia Penal Code Law (Select Northern States)
Section 382(b) of the Sharia Penal Code (Kano State) → Mandatory death sentence, has Sharia that address insults, not to God, but to the prophet and the scripture, often considered blasphemy, with penalties that can include death - a provision that has led to death sentences for individuals like Yahaya Sharif-Aminu and Sheikh Kabara, but has also been challenged by the ECOWAS Court as a violation of human rights and freedom of expression. It consequently raises a fundamental question: whether a religion’s prophet or scriptures are being elevated above God Himself, or whether the prophet of a religion or its scriptures are being afforded greater legal protection than God Himself. Both the Penal Code and Criminal Code, as well as the Sharia Penal Laws in the northern states, fail to define “insult” or “contempt,” relying instead on subjective notions of religious offense that invite arbitrary and selective enforcement.
The above provisions have increasingly been used to criminalize dissenting religious views, atheistic expression, and theological critique, rather than to prevent genuine threats to public peace. Cases such as Muhammad Mubarak Bala v. Kano State [2] demonstrate selective enforcement—often against individuals who express non-mainstream or minority beliefs—raising serious concerns under constitutional law, international human rights standards, and principles of equality before the law.

My aim is to presents a legally grounded counter-argument, demonstrating why Section 210 of the Kano state Penal code criminalizes acts that publicly insult any religion or incite contempt for it, in a way likely to cause a breach of peace, punishable by up to two years imprisonment, fine, or both, which often is used alongside Section 114 (causing public disturbance), is incompatible with Nigeria’s constitutional framework, binding international obligations, and basic principles of pluralism—while exposing the inconsistency and discrimination inherent in how religious critique is treated under Nigerian law.
NIGERIA’S CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK: A SECULAR ORDER WITH PROTECTED FREEDOMS
Section 10 of the1999 Constitution establishes Nigeria as a supposed secular state, stating that "The Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State Religion," a clause that ensures no official state religion and prohibits government endorsement of any particular faith. Other freedoms include:
a. Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion
Section 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution provides:
“Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief…” [3]
This protection includes:
• The right to hold religious or non-religious beliefs;
• The right to question, reject, criticize, or reinterpret religious doctrines.
A constitutional democracy cannot protect belief without protecting dissent.
b. Freedom of Expression
Section 39(1) guarantees:
“…every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions…” [3]
Any limitation on this right must be clearly defined, necessary, proportionate, and justifiable in a democratic society. A vague offence criminalizing “insult” to religion fails this test.
c. Core Constitutional Defect of Section 210
Section 210:
• Does not define “insult” or “contempt”;
• Relies on subjective religious offense;
• Invites arbitrary and selective enforcement.
Such a provision is incompatible with constitutional legality standards.
INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
a. ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (2025)
In a landmark judgment delivered on April 9, 2025, in the case of Incorporated Trustees of Expression Now Human Rights Initiative v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (ECW/CCJ/APP/41/23; ECW/CCJ/JUD/20/25), the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice ruled that Section 210 of the Kano State Penal Code is inconsistent with international human rights standard. [4]
The Court found that the provision violates:
• Article 9(2), African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights [5];
• Article 19, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [6].
The Court ordered Nigeria to amend or repeal the provision and similar laws. This ruling is binding under ECOWAS law.
b. International Standards on Religious Critique
The UN Human Rights Committee, in General Comment No. 34, makes it clear that: [7]
• Freedom of expression protects criticism of religions, belief systems, and doctrines;
• Laws penalizing expression merely because it is “offensive” are incompatible with Article 19 ICCPR;
• Only incitement to violence, hostility, or discrimination may be criminalized.
LEGAL DEFECTS OF SECTION 210
a. Vagueness and Overbreadth
• Terms such as “insult,” “contempt,” and “breach of peace” lack legal precision;
• No requirement of intent, imminence, or actual harm.
b. Selective and Discriminatory Enforcement
• Critics of dominant religious narratives are prosecuted;
• Similar or harsher statements by religious leaders about other faiths go unpunished.
This violates equality before the law.
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES
Tragically, Nigeria has witnessed the lethal consequences of religious intolerance, exemplified by the killing of Deborah in Sokoto for alleged blasphemy, and the harrowing case of a Deeper Life woman whose early-morning cries in Niger State went unprotected and unheard. Yet in many mixed residential areas, everyday religious practices go unchecked or unevenly regulated: Muslims performing early morning calls to prayer often exceed decibel limits, and ritual ablutions in streets and markets create environmental dirtiness, with runoff water affecting neighboring shops; similarly, large Christian crusades frequently use loudspeakers and block roads in undesignated areas, disrupting traffic and daily activities for other road users. These examples highlight a selective application of law that privileges certain religious practices while punishing dissent. By contrast, most secular democracies protect the right to critique religion, have repealed blasphemy laws, and maintain public order through narrowly tailored incitement provisions rather than privileging or censoring particular beliefs. Nigeria’s inconsistent enforcement of religious expression laws starkly places it outside global democratic norms and underscores the urgent need for open debate, tolerance, regulatory consistency, and forums such as the Oxford Union to cultivate pluralism, accountability, and intellectual freedom.
RELIGIOUS TEXTS, THEOLOGY, AND THE PROBLEM OF UNEQUAL LEGAL TREATMENT
Take a look at some Bible and Quran verses that references to “Unclean,” “Defiled,” or Spiritually Impure for outsiders:
a. 1 Samuel 17:26 (KJV) – David speaking of Goliath
“For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?”
Meaning: “Uncircumcised” is used as a term of religious and moral disparagement.
b. Mark 7:27 (KJV) – Jesus speaking
“Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.”
Meaning: Gentiles are metaphorically contrasted with covenant “children,” implying impurity or inferiority.
c. 2 Corinthians 6:14–15 (KJV)
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers…
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?”
Meaning: Explicit use of the term “infidel” to describe non-believers.
d. Acts 10:28 (KJV) – Peter speaking
“And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”
Acknowledges the prior religious belief that Gentiles were “unclean.”

a. Qur’anic Texts Commonly Cited in Inter-Religious Debate
• Surah An-Nisa 4:157 (Sahih International): “…they neither killed him nor crucified him, but it was made to appear so…” [8]
• Surah An-Nisa 4:171: “…do not say ‘Trinity’… Allah is but one God… Exalted is He above having a son…” [9]
b. The Concept of Tahrif (Scriptural Distortion)
Islamic scholarship asserts that earlier scriptures (Torah and Gospel) were distorted, whether textually or interpretively, therefore corrupted. [10]
Regardless of theological correctness:
• These claims are religious beliefs;
• They involve critique of other religious texts;
• They are expressed as truth regardless;
• Muslims are not criminalized and prosecuted for holding such views.
c. The Equal Treatment Question
If:
• Muslims can say the Bible is theologically incorrect;
• Christians can also critique Islamic claims;
• Scholars should debate all of them freely;
Then atheists, humanists, dissenters and conscientious thinkers must enjoy the same protection. Selective criminalization violates constitutional equality.
It is worth noting that the core teachings of both Christianity and Islam, in their respective scriptures, often label non-adherents as “infidels” or “uncircumcised,” terms that are inherently insulting and degrading to those outside the faith. Yet, if the roles were reversed, each faith would likely reject the punishments meted out to others, thereby violating the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”…
CASE STUDY: MUHAMMAD MUBARAK BALA
Muhammad Mubarak Bala, an atheist, was arrested, detained, and convicted under Section 210 for expressing non-religious views online. [11]
His case illustrates:
• Criminalization of belief;
• Suppression of conscience;
• Use of vague laws to silence dissent.
It demonstrates that Section 210 is about enforcing religious conformity rather than public order.
ADVOCACY AND REFORM PROPOSALS
a. Legislative Reform
• Repeal or amend Section 210;
• Replace with narrowly defined incitement-to-violence provisions.
b. Judicial Responsibility
• Apply constitutional supremacy;
• Follow ECOWAS Court precedent;
• Strike down vague religious offence laws.
c. Public Education
• Promote understanding that ideas can be criticized without violence;
• Reinforce pluralism as a democratic strength.
CONCLUSION
Theological disagreement is not a crime.
Section 210 of the Kano State Penal Code, as applied, violates:
• Nigeria’s Constitution;
• Binding ECOWAS jurisprudence;
• International human rights law;
• The principle of equality before the law.
A democratic Nigeria must protect:
• Believers and non-believers alike;
• Majority and minority views equally;
• Expression, even when uncomfortable.
Public order is best protected not by silencing ideas, but by safeguarding rights through clear, proportionate, and neutral laws. Freedom of expression, freedom of belief, and equality before the law are non-negotiable pillars of justice. Any law that criminalizes peaceful religious critique—selectively or absolutely—has no place in a constitutional democracy.
Uchenna Umez
________________________________________
Footnotes
[1] Kano State Penal Code, Section 210 (2003).
[2] Muhammad Mubarak Bala v. Kano State (High Court of Kano State, 2020).
[3] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Sections 38 & 39.
[4] Expression Now Human Rights Initiative v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, ECW/CCJ/APP/41/23 (2025).
[5] African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 9(2) (1981).
[6] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 19 (1966).
[7] UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34: Article 19, Freedoms of Opinion and Expression (2011).
[8] The Qur’an, Surah An-Nisa 4:157, Sahih International Translation.
[9] The Qur’an, Surah An-Nisa 4:171, Sahih International Translation.
[10] Ibn Hazm, Al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal (10th century).
[11] Amnesty International, “Nigeria: Muhammad Bala’s conviction a blow to freedom of belief” (2020).