Sharia court upholds ban on Facebook

Sharia court upholds ban on Facebook

A Sharia court
sitting in Kaduna on Tuesday upheld last week’s ruling that an online
discussion on the first wrist amputation in the country be banned.

The online forum
was launched by the Civil Rights Congress (CRC), a civil society
organisation, to mark the 10th anniversary of the first Sharia-court
ordered amputation in Nigeria – that of Buba Bello Jangebe, alias ‘Kare
Garke’ (ranch raider), by the Zamfara State government.

The Magajin Gari
Sharia court last week ordered the CRC and its head, Shehu Sani, to
suspend its online debate on the amputation through an interim
injunction that restrained the respondents from opening a chat forum on
Facebook, Twitter, or any blog for the purpose of the debate on the
amputation of Mr. Jangebe pending yesterday’s hearing of the case.

It’s only a forum

Mr. Sani, the
director of CRC, speaking to NEXT immediately after the ruling,
confirmed that “the Sharia court judge just finished judgement and he
upheld the ban of Facebook and Twitter chat on the amputation.”

Mr. Sani said the
chat forum was launched on Twitter and Facebook two weeks ago and was
initially challenged by the Muslim Brotherhood Association of Nigeria.

“We (the CRC) are
utterly surprised at this ruling because we only wanted to create a
forum for people to hear their views on whether what happened is
justified or not,” he said. “This group (the Muslim Brotherhood
Association of Nigeria) approached us and appealed that we close the
chat that was already running online for about ten days, claiming that
people can come around to attack Sharia law and the amputation
doctrine.”

The group then filed a suit against the online debate at the Magajin Gari Sharia court on Friday, 19 March 2010.

Mr. Jangebe had his
right wrist amputated on March 22, 2000, for theft, making him the
first convict of the Sharia law, which 12 states in Northern Nigeria
adopted in 1999 shortly after the nation returned to civilian rule
following 15 years of military dictatorship.

Unnecessary debate?

Abu Sufyan,
chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood Association of Nigeria in Kaduna,
however told NEXT over a phone conversation that his organisation was
trying to protect the image of Islam by challenging such a debate.

“As Muslims, we see
no reason why there should be a debate on an issue that we believe is
our doctrine and which Jangebe (the amputee) himself did not contest
when it happened, because it is a doctrine we believe in,” he said.
“The issue concerns on the belief and Ideology of Islam, which is to
protect the Islamic rights which is bidding on all Muslims.”

Mr. Sanni however
insists that his group “shall not relent in our right to express our
views, therefore we are heading straight to the Upper Sharia court on
Monday to challenge this ruling and if we lose there, the battle moves
to the Sharia court of appeal and the Supreme Court in that order.”

Of freedom of expression

A lecturer in the
department of Journalism at the Lagos State University, Jide Jimoh,
however called the ruling ‘a sad development.’ “This manner of ruling
negates the Section 22 and 39 of the Nigerian constitution and goes
against all binding local and international instruments that guarantees
freedom of expression and association,” he said.

Gbenga Sesan, an
ICT consultant and social media expert, expressed amusement. “I laugh
because Facebook and Twitter are beyond the jurisdiction of the Sharia
court, noting that the server on which the information is hosted is not
in Nigeria,” he said.

However, he raised
the fear that the error of allowing this ruling to stay will create a
precedent for “that will be a huge assault on the freedom which the
internet provides.”

He advised the CRC
to create another group (in a physical space that cannot be touched by
a Kaduna-based court) and register new accounts while they ‘comply’
with the court ruling in the interest of avoiding the injection of
religious sentiments into the ongoing series of events.

“The internet is a
tricky place to issue or uphold rulings because of the free – and
possibly anonymous – nature of cyberspace,” he said.

Go to Source

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *