The Supreme Court has commenced proceedings on the appeal filed by Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, the Kano-based singer sentenced to death by hanging for alleged blasphemy against Prophet Mohammed.
The case, which came up on Thursday at the apex court, marks a critical stage in a legal battle that has drawn national and international attention since 2020.
Sharif-Aminu’s ordeal began on March 4, 2020, when he circulated a song via WhatsApp. The lyrics were deemed offensive and blasphemous against Prophet Muhammad.
Following public outrage, protesters stormed his family house in Kano and set it ablaze while demanding his arrest. He was subsequently taken into custody by the Hisbah police in Kano.
On August 10, 2020, an upper sharia court in Hausawa Filin Hockey area of Kano convicted Sharif-Aminu and sentenced him to death by hanging.
The singer did not deny the charges at the trial. Aliyu Muhammad Kani, the trial judge, informed him of his right to appeal the ruling.
The judgment sparked outrage across social media platforms, with many groups raising concerns about freedom of expression and fair trial standards.
Displeased with the verdict, Sharif-Aminu approached the Kano state high court.
On January 21, 2021, the high court quashed his conviction on the grounds that he was denied legal representation at the sharia court. However, it ordered that he face a fresh trial before another sharia court.
Not satisfied with the order for retrial, Sharif-Aminu appealed to the court of appeal in Kano, arguing that since the original conviction was nullified, he should have been acquitted and discharged.
The appellate court, in a majority decision, upheld the retrial order, ruling that it was lawful and in the interest of justice.
The majority judgment further held that the Kano State Sharia Penal Code Law 2000, under which Sharif-Aminu was convicted, was not unconstitutional.
A minority decision disagreed, arguing that the singer ought to have been discharged once the initial trial was declared invalid.
The singer then proceeded to the supreme court to challenge the appellate court’s ruling.
