THE IMPACT OF SHARIA PANEL COURT PROVISIONS ON BLASPHEMY IN KANO: POLITICAL ISSUES, CHALLENGES, AND PERSPECTIVES

Abstract

Blasphemy allegations in Kano State have long escalated into socio-political crises that expose the tension between religious interpretation, constitutional rights, and governance. This paper examines how the Sharia Panel Court’s blasphemy provisions operate in practice, drawing on in-depth interviews with legal practitioners, religious scholars, human rights advocates, and community leaders, together with document analysis of court judgments and legislation. Using Legal Pluralism and Conflict Theory as complementary lenses, the study argues that blasphemy adjudication in Kano unfolds within a contested space between formal and informal legal authority, one that regularly generates disputes over rights, justice, and state power. Findings show that ambiguous legal language, the politicisation of accusations, and weak fair-trial protections undermine the Sharia Panel Courts’ stated aim of upholding religious sanctity, and that a persistent gap between public expectations of instant justice and the slower pace of formal proceedings fuels mob violence. The paper recommends legal clarification, judicial capacity-building, depoliticisation of accusations, stronger alternative dispute resolution, sustained interfaith dialogue, and clearer jurisdictional boundaries to protect fundamental rights alongside religious sensitivities.