In a landmark judgment that has reverberated across Nigeria and the international human rights community, the ECOWAS Court recently ruled that the blasphemy laws of Kano State—and by extension, similar laws across Nigeria—violate the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Leading this bold legal victory is Solomon Okedara, a human and digital rights lawyer. In this exclusive interview with The West African Pilot News, Okedara breaks down the case, the judgment, and Nigeria’s international human rights obligations.
Q: Who is Solomon Okedara, and what drives your work in human rights law?
A: Solomon Okedara is a digital rights lawyer with over 17 years post-call experience and expertise in litigation and non-litigious areas of law practice. Solomon has a special bias for Human Rights (especially focusing on Freedom of Expression), Data Protection & Privacy, Digital Identity, Access to Internet, and Online Expressions. I am a Partner at Solomon Okedara & Co. (a firm of Barristers and Solicitors) and co-founded Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative, a not-for-profit NGO that focuses on the promotion and protection of digital rights and Expression Now Human Rights Initiative. I am a 2016 Research Fellowship Recipient of the International Center for Not-for-profit Law (ICNL), Washington, DC. I was specially recognized in 2017 as a “Hero of Human Rights” by Access Now. I was specially recognized as a Finalist at the 2018 and 2024 Global Freedom of Expression Prize Ceremonies in New York for my impressive challenges to the Cybercrimes Act 2015 and the Nigerian Broadcasting Code. In 2022, I was recognized with the Lex Falcon Global Award in Law and Technology. As a Public Interest lawyer, I have recorded unprecedented wins before national courts and the ECOWAS Court. Some of my landmark judgments include the declaration of repressive provisions of the Nigerian Broadcasting Code as violations of freedom of expression in the case of Incorporated Trustees of Expression Now Human Rights Initiative v Federal Republic of Nigeria by the ECOWAS Court in October 2023. The declaration of delay in issuance of passport as violation of right to freedom of movement in the case of Benita Ngozi Ezumezu v Nigeria Immigration Service & Anor delivered by the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja in December 2024, and finally the declaration of Blasphemy Laws of Kano State and other similar laws in Nigeria as violations of right to freedom of expression in the case of Incorporated Trustees of Expression Now Human Rights Initiative v Federal Republic of Nigeria by the ECOWAS Court on April 9, 2025.
For me, I realized long ago that no nation has ever experienced true national development without entrenchment of rule of law, and rule of law does not get entrenched in the system without conscious, intentional and selfless efforts of some compatriots and I chose to be one of such compatriots, having been armed with knowledge of law.
Q: For those unfamiliar, could you briefly walk us through the background of the ECOWAS Court case that led to this landmark decision?
A: On October 6, 2023, we initiated an action at the ECOWAS Court challenging perennial violation 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. Firstly, it is important to note that Nigeria is a signatory to a number of international instruments that guarantee the foregoing rights, and in the case of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) Nigeria did not only ratify it but it was also domesticated as a local law in Nigeria as African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9) LFN 2004. This instrument places an obligation on the Nigerian government to protect the rights guaranteed in it in all jurisdictions within its territory, including the rights under reference in the action before the ECOWAS Court. On one hand the action challenged the consistent use and/or failure to prevent the use of criminal provisions bothering on the offence of blasphemy to arrest, arbitrarily detain, unlawfully prosecute, imprison and impose death sentence on citizens by the Nigerian government, and 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 in the case was essentially that the specific laws being challenged are constituent state laws and not federal laws and that when any law of a state or federal government is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitutions (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 further argued that it has sufficient domestic systems that deal with criminal matters, including fair prosecutions and bail matters, and that it has institutions dedicated to the protection of human rights. The Nigerian government finally urged the court to dismiss the suit or strike it out for want of jurisdiction and for lack of merit. Contrarily, 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) are 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. 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.
Q: Why did you choose to approach the ECOWAS Court instead of pursuing this through Nigerian courts?
A: The interesting thing is that under its human rights jurisdiction, the citizens of the ECOWAS Community are at liberty to approach the court on an allegation of violation of human rights without first meeting the requirements of exhaustion of local remedies, unlike the African Court. Further to that, the ECOWAS Court has recently deepened its jurisprudence on freedom of expression with its impressive and indeed creative judgments in some of the recent cases litigated before it. Some of these cases include the Twitter Ban case and the Nigerian Broadcasting Code case of October 23, 2023, which I litigated before the court. Regardless, I still have many important public interest cases before our national courts, and both I and the parties in those cases have confidence in the knowledge and impartiality required of our judges to do justice in those cases. To prove this, the case which has now become the locus classicus on delay in issuance of passport as a violation of right to freedom of movement (Benita Ngozi Ezumezu v Nigeria Immigration Service & Anor) is a judgment of a Nigerian court which I litigated and the precedent-setting judgment has attracted commendations from within and outside Nigeria.
Q: The Court’s judgment directed Kano State to either abolish or reform the death penalty for blasphemy. In the context of international human rights law, how groundbreaking is this ruling?
A: Firstly, the ECOWAS Court, in the release on its official website, described the judgment as “landmark”, and I am not sure how many of the court’s judgments have even earned the description of being a “landmark judgment”. Secondly, this is the first judgment I know of anywhere in the world where a court struck down a blasphemy provision for its excessive or disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression (death sentence). Even the American case R.A.V. v City of St.Paul, Minnesota, only focused on the overbreadth of the statutory provision, not the proportionality of the penalties. So for me, the judgment of the ECOWAS Court in this case is globally ground-breaking!
Q: Given that Nigeria is a signatory to several international treaties, how binding is this ECOWAS Court decision on the Nigerian government and Kano State in particular?
A: I stated earlier that the action was initiated on the basis of Nigeria’s international obligations in the African Charter, and so the judgment is binding on Nigeria as a state to ensure that no law exists in any jurisdiction within its territory that violates freedom of expression under whatever guise.
Q: The Kano State Government has dismissed the ruling, saying it interferes with religious laws and local customs. How do you respond to those concerns?
A: If you look at it, the responsibility of enforcement of the judgment of the court in this case rests on the shoulders of the Nigerian government who was the Respondent in the suit and who has the obligation under the international instrument it ratified and domesticated to live up to the obligation of protection and promotion of freedom of expression in all jurisdictions within its territory to do the needful. I would rather wait to see the reaction of the Nigerian government, not that of Kano State. Further to that, if you note, it is not only blasphemy laws in Kano State alone that are affected in the judgment but all blasphemy laws in Nigeria and that is why the words of the judgment contained “and similar laws”, so the responsibility of enforcement, like I said, rests on the shoulders of the Nigerian government.
Q: What legal and institutional mechanisms exist to ensure Kano State takes the practical steps needed to comply with the ECOWAS ruling?
A: As to legal mechanisms that exist for the enforcement of the judgment, judgments of the court are enforced through the competent national authority of the member state, which in the case of Nigeria is the office of the Attorney General of the Federation. However, it may be insightful to note that this kind of judgment may require beyond legal mechanism but also political approach in enforcing the judgment because of the sensitivity of the nature of subject that is impacted and I must say that it is important to see this journey not as the end of blasphemy laws as we have known them in Nigeria but a worthy start of a journey that of true inclusivity in a heterogenous and pluralistic democratic society like ours. The judgment is the start of a marathon, not a sprint!
Q: Are there legal or diplomatic consequences the Nigerian government might face in case of noncompliance?
A: As to the legal consequences, while the office of the registrar deals with the non-compliance of the judgment of the court, I look forward to the collaboration of the member states to be able to arrive at effective enforcement mechanisms against non-compliance. As to diplomatic consequences, while Nigeria remains a sovereign state, we cannot pre-empt levels of persuasion from states or blocs with an interest in religious freedom in Nigeria.
Q: Do you think it is possible to strike a meaningful balance between the application of Sharia law and Nigeria’s international human rights obligations?
A: When you look at the judgment of the ECOWAS Court, the blasphemy laws were not struck down merely because they were seen as negative legislation. The court noted that they were laws for legitimate concerns of public order, but each of them fell short of important requirements of permissibility of restrictions to freedom of expression which is legal certainty (for Section 210 of the Kano State Penal Code as vague, failing to provide clear guidance on what constitutes religious insult and therefore lacking the legal precision required under international human rights standards) and proportionality (for Section 382(b) of the Kano State Sharia Penal Code Law (2000), which imposes the death penalty for insulting the Prophet Muhammad, as “excessive and disproportionate” in a democratic society). If a provision of Sharia Law for a legitimate objective is therefore clearly defined and the restrictions it imposes are proportionate, then such provisions of Sharia Law can perfectly co-exist with international human rights standards.
Q: Looking beyond Kano, how might this decision impact other northern Nigerian states with similar laws under Sharia jurisdiction?
A: It is important to note that by the judgment, all blasphemy laws in Nigeria that fall short of legal certainty and proportionality, like Kano State blasphemy laws, are affected. The court expressly 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 that sense, all blasphemy laws in jurisdictions within the territory of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are affected by the judgment.
Q: Finally, what message does this ruling send to victims of religious persecution or those facing blasphemy charges in Nigeria?
A: Hope!
2 comments
Jide Smith
May 6, 2025 at 12:02 am
Okedara’s comments show that the court’s decision affects not just Nigeria but all ECOWAS countries. He stresses the need to change unfair laws and follow international agreements, urging both government leaders and the public to take action.
Babawale Odunuga
May 5, 2025 at 5:09 pm
This is an outstanding achievement!
I am very proud of Barrister Solomon Okedara for doing this. If Nigeria had this legal provision in place before now, many innocent Christian lives such as Deborah would have been saved in Northern Nigeria. Kudos to all the legal team who worked with Barrister Solomon on this case. You guys are rewriting history one case at a time. Thank you so much for all you do!!!