Shari’a Court

By Fatih Lawal-Garu 

The editorial published by the Nigerian Tribune on May 14, 2026, titled “Divorce: The Kaduna woman who has nowhere to go,” raises an emotionally compelling and socially important issue. It tells the painful story of a 44-year-old woman in Kaduna who, after three decades of marriage and raising ten children, now faces uncertainty and displacement following the collapse of her marriage. No reasonable person can read such an account without sympathy. 

The plight of divorced women abandoned without adequate support is a serious social concern that deserves national reflection, institutional response, and moral accountability. In that regard, the editorial performed an important public service by drawing attention to the suffering of vulnerable women who often find themselves economically and emotionally exposed after divorce. However, while the editorial correctly highlights the woman’s distressing condition, it unfortunately places the blame on Sharī’ah law itself. In doing so, it arrives at a sweeping conclusion that deserves careful scrutiny.

The editorial argued that “in a justice system that appears discriminatory against women and girls, the likelihood was high that the judge would have ordered the forceful eviction of this woman if her ex-husband had not volunteered to pay for a new accommodation.” This statement is problematic for several reasons. 

First, it amounts to a premature judgment regarding a matter that has not yet been fully adjudicated by a competent Sharī’ah court. It assumes judicial bias and predicts an unjust verdict before due legal process has run its course. Such conclusions risk undermining public confidence in the judicial system based on speculation rather than evidence. More fundamentally, the editorial goes further to characterise Shari’ah as “oppressive,” “unfavourable,” and “discriminatory,” implying that Islamic law itself is inherently unjust to women. This is where the central analytical flaw emerges.

The unfortunate experience of one woman—even a deeply painful one—cannot reasonably serve as sufficient evidence to indict an entire legal and moral framework followed by millions across centuries and societies. Doing so conflates implementation failures with failures in principle. The Kaduna woman’s suffering is not proof of the failure of Sharī’ah. Rather, it reflects the failure of individuals, institutions, and society to properly uphold the rights and protections that Sharī’ah itself explicitly provides. 

Many injustices wrongly attributed to Sharī’ah are, in reality, products of harmful cultural practices, ignorance of Islamic legal obligations, weak institutional enforcement, economic neglect, and social irresponsibility. Islam did not establish marriage as a prison, nor did it sanction the abandonment of women after years of sacrifice and commitment.

On the contrary, Islamic law imposes profound responsibilities upon husbands to act with justice, compassion, dignity, and accountability—particularly during divorce. The Qur’an itself contains explicit protections for divorced women. 

In Surah At-Talaq (65:1), divorced women are not to be expelled from their homes unjustly. In verse 65:6, husbands are instructed to provide accommodation according to their means. Surah Al-Baqarah (2:231) forbids oppressive treatment during divorce, while verse 2:241 mandates fair provision for divorced women. These are not marginal principles within Islamic law; they are foundational ethical obligations. The tragedy, therefore, lies not in the law itself, but in the failure to implement it faithfully and justly. To portray this painful incident as evidence that Sharī’ah is inherently oppressive overlooks the extensive protections embedded within Islamic legal tradition. It also ignores an uncomfortable reality: abuse, neglect, and injustice occur under virtually every legal and social system when institutions fail, and human beings abandon moral responsibility.

Indeed, women face abandonment, economic hardship, and domestic injustice in societies governed by secular legal systems as well. No legal framework—religious or secular—is immune from misuse when justice is poorly administered. The deeper issue exposed by this case is the persistence of harmful social attitudes toward divorced women, inadequate welfare and family support systems, poor legal literacy, and weak enforcement mechanisms for protecting vulnerable individuals after marital breakdown.

These are societal failures that demand reform, education, and stronger accountability—not the wholesale condemnation of a divinely grounded legal tradition.

Critiquing the abuse of Shari’ah is legitimate. Critiquing failures in judicial implementation is equally necessary. But condemning Sharī’ah itself on the basis of individual misconduct or institutional shortcomings is intellectually unsound and ultimately counterproductive.

If anything, cases like this should encourage a renewed commitment to proper Islamic legal education, ethical family conduct, judicial fairness, and stronger institutional protection for women—not the dismissal of Sharī’ah altogether.

To mistake the abuse of a system for the failure of the system itself is a serious analytical error. It shifts attention away from the actual causes of injustice and risks obstructing meaningful solutions.

The real challenge before society is therefore not whether Sharī’ah is just, but whether those entrusted with implementing it are willing to uphold its principles with sincerity, knowledge, compassion, and fairness.

That is where the conversation truly belongs.

Fatih Lawal-Garu is a Mass Communication graduate from Bayero University, Kano, and can be reached at ibnkamilgaru1@gmail.com.

By Maryam Ahmad

An Upper Shariah Court in Kano has sentenced one Shafiu Abubakar to death by hanging for setting fire to a mosque in Gadan village, Gezawa Local Government Area, leading to the death of several worshippers.

The tragic incident occurred earlier this year when Abubakar reportedly locked the mosque doors and poured petrol before setting the building ablaze during early morning prayers. The attack claimed the lives of multiple worshippers and left others with severe injuries.

Presiding over the case, the judge described Abubakar’s actions as deliberate and heinous, noting that the punishment was in line with Shariah provisions for such offences.

The sentencing has drawn mixed reactions. Some residents welcome the verdict as justice served, while others continue to mourn the devastating loss.

Authorities have urged communities to remain calm and uphold peace and coexistence.

By Uzair Adam

A Kano State High Court has dismissed allegations leveled by one Surajo Isa Yarima, who accused the court of illegally auctioning his property and rendering his family homeless.

In a statement released on Tuesday, the court’s Head of Public Relations, Baba Jibo Ibrahim, described the claims as baseless and an attempt to tarnish the court’s reputation.

The Daily Reality gathered that the controversy began after a Small Claims Magistrate Court, in December 2023, ruled against Yarima, ordering him to pay N355,000 to a plaintiff.

Following his failure to comply, the judgment creditor sought to recover the debt by attaching Yarima’s movable properties, which proved insufficient.

Subsequently, the creditor applied for the attachment and auction of Yarima’s immovable property, a process the High Court approved after adhering to due process.

“All actions taken by the court in this matter were in accordance with the law and principles of justice,” Baba Jibo said.

He added that Yarima was served hearing notices and given ample opportunity to challenge the application but failed to do so.

Claims that the auction left Yarima’s family homeless were also refuted.

“Investigations revealed that the property was rented to a tenant at the time of the sale, and his family was never evicted. The only item found in the house after the auction was a single mattress,” the statement clarified.

The court also addressed a petition by Yarima’s wife, who claimed ownership of the property. Her case was dismissed after it was determined that the sale agreements she presented did not pertain to the auctioned property.

The Chief Judge of Kano State launched an internal investigation, extending it to the property’s location and its neighborhood.

“Our findings unequivocally disproved the allegations. Yarima and his family resided in a neighboring house, and after the auction, he sold that house and renovated the auctioned property to mislead the public,” Baba Jibo stated.

The court warned that making false claims against public institutions is punishable under Section 140 of the Penal Code.

“It is disheartening that the judiciary, in the lawful execution of its duties, is subjected to such baseless attacks. Legal action will be taken where necessary,” Baba Jibo added.

He also urged media outlets to verify information before publication to prevent misinformation and protect the reputation of public institutions.

The High Court reiterated its commitment to justice and transparency in its proceedings.

Isma’il Hashim Abubakar

A few weeks ago, the Kano State Hisbah Board stole the limelight when a brief misunderstanding erupted between the Kano State Governor, Abba Kabir Yusuf, and the Hisbah leadership. The Muslim public, represented by religious leaders and the elite, played a significant role in calming tensions and restoring peace in the issue, which everyone welcomed with sincere happiness and unique hope that the short altercation would result in the promotion and reinforcement of Hisbah. 

In the two articles I penned within the clusters of that misunderstanding, I stressed that Hisbah is virtually the only government institution that transcends abstract symbolism and remains the lively organ that operationally contributes to the implementation of the Shari’a project, which was once the highest ambition of the Nigerian Muslims. I emphasised that all Muslims should regard Hisbah as their delicate property that should not be, in the least, jeopardised by internal or external commissions, omissions or inactions of any individual, no matter how highly placed, let alone common people who can just be dealt with and cracked down by responsible leadership.

One of the top functions of Hisbah is to serve as a machinery that supports the process of Shari’a implementation by deterring people from committing crimes, apprehending suspects, and presenting them before Shari’a courts for proper investigation and ruling. Of course, at different stages, Hisbah commendably serves as a forum for reconciliation and solving social disputes, which at times pleases and satisfies opposing parties in a better way than courts do. Nonetheless, this is never an excuse for the institution if it operates so that its effort to intervene in matters and find solutions for them becomes counterproductive to the letter, spirit and goals of Shari’a, which the board was primarily established to protect. 

Although preserving dignity is a principle that characterises Hisbah’s operations, as a government force backed by law, the board is not expected to provide cover or leeway for criminals to evade the wrath of the law. Shari’a will cease to have its proper meaning if criminals assume they are not to be treated as culpable and should, in principle, be deterred from, cautioned against, or punished for flouting Islamic law. 

In light of how some Hisbah officials handle cases both at the headquarters and various branches in the 44 local governments, some categories of criminals now utilise Hisbah to get their crimes tacitly covered as they further pursue their fiendish goals by conniving with or approaching some elements within the board. They no longer fear legal penalties that their crimes could lead them to, but could even summon the courage to approach the board to confess their crimes and demand certain rights that may have followed the consequences of their crimes. 

To be clearer, by citing examples, in a recent report I watched, which was broadcast by Tozali Magazine Online TV, a Chinese master in a company in Kano impregnated the daughter of his driver. When this crime was unmasked, the people involved tried several ways to abort the six-month pregnancy. After failing to get rid of the mess since medical experts refused to conspire with the Chinese fellow and his illegitimate in-laws, the case was taken to Hisbah, who is said to have searched for a solution for them. 

The report has it that the Hisbah leadership has resolved that the Chinese man, who earlier sought to silence his poor driver through pecuniary consolation, should just now marry the girl despite her heavy pregnancy so that the matter would be put to rest. If this report is true, with all its attendant jurisprudential intricacies, similar to what has allegedly occurred repeatedly in several branches of the morality police, then the institution needs to review its operations. 

As a Shari’a implementation body, when a suspect admits committing a crime as felonious as this, which involves adultery and attempts at feticide, is the expected response from Hisbah to look for a solution or to make a comprehensive investigation and forward the case to Shari’a court for judgment? Is Hisbah not shielding adulterers and providing escape routes for suspects who attempted to commit a feticidal crime? The punishment for an adulterer is clear; to be stoned to death and 100 lashes for the girl who seems to be unmarried since her Chinese lover, according to the report, did not rape her or use any form of coercion to have carnal knowledge of her. How could all this be replaced by forcing these criminal parties into marriage? 

A knowledgeable person heads the Hisbah, and the wisdom behind resorting to marrying culprits of this nature is a motive to preserve human dignity, conceal wrongs committed and prevent an illegal child from being born from perpetual bullying and stigmatisation. But yet, is this enough reason to sacrifice divine injunctions and render them obsolete? From what we read in the Glorious Qur’an and interpreted by the Messenger (SAW) through his speeches and deeds, suspects could only be shielded if the matter is not taken to authority or the relevant legal agency has not got hold of the felons. Concerning a set of crimes and their penalties, Allah says:

“illa alladhīna tābū min qabli an taqdirū ‘alaihim fa’lamū anna Allaha Gafūrun Rahīm” (except those who repent before they fall into your power, then know that Allah is Most-Forgiving, Most-Merciful) [ Sūrat al-Mā’idah: 34].

In several instances, the Prophet (SAW) warned that once a matter was presented before his court, then Allah’s law would take precedence over all other concerns. However, the Prophet (SAW) took pity on an illegal child born by a woman from the al-Ghāmidī clan. As a result, he asked her to go and take care of her child when the woman returned after she successfully weaned the child. She insisted that she must be punished according to the divine law; the Prophet (SAW) did not look for any other solution but applied the law to her, which, interestingly, promoted her posthumous virtue and spiritual rank. Worthy of notice also, nothing was heard about the man responsible for her illegal birth, nor did the Prophet himself ask her to mention him, just as the child was also integrated into the society without inscribing a permanent taboo on his status. 

Of course, many will argue that the penalties above are practically infeasible, but yet rewarding the felons with marriage is also discouraging and counterproductive to the goals of Shari’a. A midway solution is at least to apply a warning penalty (ta’zīr) on the criminals by serving their sentences to spend years in jail, which will be done by the court.

The scenario of Ɗan Chana and his street in-laws represents one of the many cases that evince Hisbah’s indecision to fully side with the spirit and letter of Shari’a as fully enshrined in the state law and is still the main legal framework that ought to guide Shari’a implementation process. It is now common to see a girl carrying a small child and asking for the address of Hisbah to report a case of her love affair, which resulted in the birth of a bastard whose alleged father refuses to adopt, take care of, or just abandons. The girl will summon enough courage and temerity to shamelessly divulge her secret affair just because she is confident she won’t be served with proper Shari’a law. Her aim for approaching Hisbah is not to repent and make amends but rather to wheedle her way into favour and capitalise on the institution’s power to extort money from her accomplice, who may have even denied being responsible for the unwanted birth. 

Even if Hisbah won’t pursue the case to the court, which it should, it should at least explain to girls like this that pregnancy and birth are enough evidence to prove a woman guilty of adultery or fornication, unlike in men’s cases, which primarily demands eyewitnesses or personal confessions. After all, illicit relationships do not have a sanctity similar to marriage, which has a Shari’a cover. As such, failure by a partner in illicit relationships to fulfil certain duties should not be equated with marital disputes between spouses. If a whore pretends that she is innocent and goes on to claim damages or demand a right, then what makes her different from a legitimate housewife or a divorcee? 

In the same manner, men accused of raping innocent girls are sometimes relieved from their burden through local arrangements with victims’ families such that in the long run, money will be the prime solver of the dispute, and suspects get away once they make commitments to take care of certain clamours about their victims.

The disconnect between some operations of Hisbah, which is portending a gloomy future for the institution, shall be one of the priorities of the governing council of the board, but also the head of government, who now does not have any doubt about the institution’s significance and dearness to the Muslim public. As we are in an era of normalisation of strange and weird mores and practices, Hisbah should be highly cautious and extra-careful not to be an agent through which barbaric, savage and amoral attitudes will be mainstreamed. 

Lovers who lack fear of God or a woman who falls so low to trade with her dignity in exchange for cash will continue to be emboldened to make a claim when any of them feels cheated in an illegal deal. No matter how rich or influential a man is, he shouldn’t be given a cover to get away with his crime just for pledging to take care of his rape victims. The application of appropriate legal sanctions is the only solution and guarantee for the safety of all parties, including the Hisbah and its leadership.

Isma’il writes from Rabat and is reachable via ismailiiit18@gmail.com.