Mallam Bello Masaba is an usual man; a modern day King Solomon of the 1,000 women fame. At 86 years of age married to 86 wives and 120 children Masaba is still going strong, a feat which ought to earn him a well deserved place in the Guinness Book of World Records except that the ‘world’ in that encyclopaedia of achievements means Europe, America, Asia Latin America and Australasia, everywhere else except Africa from which nothing spectacular or remarkable is expected. However this article is not about the Western media or its prejudiced even racist disposition. Rather our focus here is Mallam Masaba’s record-breaking polygamy and the paradoxical trouble it has now brought upon the hapless old man.
Yes, Mallam Bello Masaba for several years lived like a king in his Bidda homestead marrying and taking in marrying, begetting and replenishing the earth for several years as a respected Islamic Cleric and community leader without attracting any adverse or negative attention to himself. But that was before he (ill advisedly?) attracted media attention to his unusual life-style. Then the same traditional and religious authorities with whom he had wined and dined all these years suddenly remembered that he had married far in excess of the legally prescribed number of wives. Thus trouble came aplenty like a flood; the local traditional ruler ordered him to leave town indeed the whole of the emirate unless he could within 48 hours set another world record of divorcing 82 of his wives in the same period. The jamat (The Islamic Faithful - Brethren) promptly denounced him as an infidel and his act of sacrilege - marrying 86 wives instead of a maximum of 4 wives deserving of a fatwa a sentence of death that can be executed by any of the faithfuls. Being unable to create a new world record of 82 divorces in 48 hours, he was promptly arraigned before the Upper Sharia Court Minna for amongst other crimes “contracting unlawful marriage to 86 wives.”
In the face of this moral threat not only to his unusual lifestyle but his very life and existence, the octogenarian polygamist rallied; he promptly approached the Federal High Court where Justice G.O Kolawole granted him leave to enforce his fundamental human right. But all that did not deter the Upper Area Court from proceeding in defiance of constitutional judicial hierarchy to detain Mallam Masaba for “incendiary contempt of religious law by contracting unlawful marriage to 86 wives” which we reliably informed carries a death penalty under the Niger State Sharia Penal Code.
This unfortunate case illustrates some of the contradictions which some of the self-serving actions of our politicians cum public officers can bring about.
When Sani Ahmed Yerima former Governor of Zamfara State now a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria thought that by introducing political sharia he could clip the wings of President Olusegun Obasanjo and the seemingly growing powers of Southern Nigeria in the affairs of Nigeria, little could he have realised that the political sharia he spear headed in Northern Nigeria is like a mad-dog which after chasing his away the perceived enemies will turn around to devour the children of the owner. Or isn’t it interesting that it is not a non-native unbeliever that is caught in the web of alleged sharia violation but a respected native and local cleric?
From the strict legal perspectives this matter brings to the fore once again, the constitutionality or otherwise of the Sharia Penal Code introduced into many parts of Northern Nigeria in the heady days of political sharia by former Governor Sani and fellow political travelers.
While no Nigeria lawyer or student of the Nigeria Constitution can challenge the constitutionality of the sharia legal system particularly in civil proceeding involving questions of Islamic personal law “section 262 of the Nigeria Constitution serious problems are bound to arise in respect of laws made by States in respect of Criminal Jurisdiction of the Sharia which not only conflict with federal laws but the express provisions of the constitution. A legitimate question at this point is whether the Criminal Jurisdiction of the Sharia Court in a State like Niger State can override the penal code (a federal law) as applicable in Niger State. Yet another relevant question is if there is no offence in the Penal Code for marrying more than 4 wives, a state sharia code prescribing punishing such an act can be valid. And most importantly under the principle of legislative supremacy of Federal laws is whether a state law prescribing death penalty for a state (sharia) offence can override a federal (penal) code in which such an offence is neither known to law nor at all punishable?”
Finally, in view of the Constitutional Supremacy of the Federal High Court to the Upper Area Court, whether the upper Area court in view of he leave already granted Mallam Bello Masaba by Justice G.O Kolawole of the Federal High Court, the Minna Upper Area Court can continue with the trial of Mallam Masaba?
The new few months when all the above knotty legal puzzles will be untied by the appropriate courts will give a clearer picture of the constitutionality of the peculiar brand of sharia introduced into Northern Nigeria by former Governor Sani Yerima. The several case law decisions on the matter will be up for consideration.
A.G Ogun State V Aderuagba (1983) NWLR (Pt 3) 395.
A.G Bendel V A.G.F (1982) 3 NCLRI
A.G Ondo State V A.G.F (2002) 6 S.C. (pt 1)
However, one aspect of the case requires comment is the fatwa supposedly passed on Mallam Masaba by the Jamat. If the recent decisions of the Supreme Court are anything to go bye, the pronouncement of death sentence under Islamic law is not for private individuals but a matter left in persons skilled in Islamic jurisprudence. In Kaza V State. The appellant and 5 others had killed the deceased for blasphemy against the Holy Prophet (S.A.W). When the deceased was to be killed, one of the accused persons had read a portion of the Quran that allegedly sanctioned the killing of any one who insulted the Holy Prophet. The accused persons thus felt justified to kill the blasphemer. At their trial the accused person and other pleaded the act of blasphemy of the deceased as the basis of the defence of provocation for killing the deceased. The Supreme Court would have none of this puerile and ignorant defence.
“Per Muhammed JSC” Islamic law has not left the killing open in the hands of private individuals. The offence alleged has to be established through evidence before a court of law. The court itself will have to implore the professional dexterity in treating the case by allowing fair hearing and excluding all the inadmissible evidence or those persons who may fall within the exemption clause such as an infant, imbecile or those who suffer mental delusion. Thus, the killing is controlled and sanctioned by the authorities.
Abdul Qadar Oudah in his Criminal Law of Islam Vol. 111 (Improved edition) 1999 stated that if any of the crimes involving HUDDUD (fixed punishment) QISAS (Retaliation) and TA’ AZIR (penal/exemplary punishments) is imputed to a person he will be prosecuted against in a court of law. If the charge against him is established, sentence will accordingly be passed keeping in view the prescribed punishment. If she charge cannot be established, the accused will be acquitted. If the sentence is passed the ruler or competent authority will be responsible for its execution in respect of offences hudood and panel punishments.
His lordship went on to say that “The law will, thus, have set a dangerous precedence if individuals were authorised to take the law into their hands as the appellant and others did in the case. Sharia guarantees and values the sanctity and dignity of human life. That is why it outlaws unlawful killing of human life.
The Quran has several verses in various chapters where it outlaws such nefarious acts. For instance it provides in chapter 6 (Surat – An ‘ Am) verse 161 as follows:-
“And do not kill the souls which Allah has forbidden (to be killed) except by legal right.”
The Prophet (SAW) is reported to have said that the first action to be judged on the Day of Judgment is the spilling of blood.
(See Bulugh Al-Maram Min Adi IIatil Akham by Asqalani page 244. In another Hadith the Prophet is reported to have said that three things have been made illegal to a Muslim:
(i) to spill the blood of another or deprive him of his life
(ii) to deprive him of his property and
(iii) to deprive him of his honour or integrity
(See Forty Traditions of Iman Annewawi) Kaza V State (2008) 1-2 S.C (151 at 226/227.
See also the Sisters cases of Shalla V State (2007) 7010 S.C 107 at 168-170
Yaro V State (2007) 7-10 S.C 77
Which all involve the trial of the 6 accused persons who took part in the extra-judicial killing of Abdullahi Alh. Umaru allegedly for blasphemy against Holy Prophet.
The above legal exposition were quoted verbatim from the judgement of the Supreme Court which remains the final authority on not only on common law but Islamic jurisprudence in Nigeria.
Thus the Jamat are advised to be guided by relevant tenets and jurisprudence of their religion as opposed to ignorant even if popular and politically correct views of what is or is not a violation of Sharia in handling the case of Mallam Bello Masaba the octogenarian polygamist.
On a lighter note, perhaps Baba Masaba ought to return to the South-West where he married many of his wives and will certainly not offend any of the laws.
After all the late business Mogul Cum politician Chief MKO Abiola himself an highly respected Muslim and vice-president of the Supreme Council for Islamic in Nigeria married many wives, although not as many as 86 and had no problems based on his polygamist life-style.
Yes, Mallam Bello Masaba for several years lived like a king in his Bidda homestead marrying and taking in marrying, begetting and replenishing the earth for several years as a respected Islamic Cleric and community leader without attracting any adverse or negative attention to himself. But that was before he (ill advisedly?) attracted media attention to his unusual life-style. Then the same traditional and religious authorities with whom he had wined and dined all these years suddenly remembered that he had married far in excess of the legally prescribed number of wives. Thus trouble came aplenty like a flood; the local traditional ruler ordered him to leave town indeed the whole of the emirate unless he could within 48 hours set another world record of divorcing 82 of his wives in the same period. The jamat (The Islamic Faithful - Brethren) promptly denounced him as an infidel and his act of sacrilege - marrying 86 wives instead of a maximum of 4 wives deserving of a fatwa a sentence of death that can be executed by any of the faithfuls. Being unable to create a new world record of 82 divorces in 48 hours, he was promptly arraigned before the Upper Sharia Court Minna for amongst other crimes “contracting unlawful marriage to 86 wives.”
In the face of this moral threat not only to his unusual lifestyle but his very life and existence, the octogenarian polygamist rallied; he promptly approached the Federal High Court where Justice G.O Kolawole granted him leave to enforce his fundamental human right. But all that did not deter the Upper Area Court from proceeding in defiance of constitutional judicial hierarchy to detain Mallam Masaba for “incendiary contempt of religious law by contracting unlawful marriage to 86 wives” which we reliably informed carries a death penalty under the Niger State Sharia Penal Code.
This unfortunate case illustrates some of the contradictions which some of the self-serving actions of our politicians cum public officers can bring about.
When Sani Ahmed Yerima former Governor of Zamfara State now a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria thought that by introducing political sharia he could clip the wings of President Olusegun Obasanjo and the seemingly growing powers of Southern Nigeria in the affairs of Nigeria, little could he have realised that the political sharia he spear headed in Northern Nigeria is like a mad-dog which after chasing his away the perceived enemies will turn around to devour the children of the owner. Or isn’t it interesting that it is not a non-native unbeliever that is caught in the web of alleged sharia violation but a respected native and local cleric?
From the strict legal perspectives this matter brings to the fore once again, the constitutionality or otherwise of the Sharia Penal Code introduced into many parts of Northern Nigeria in the heady days of political sharia by former Governor Sani and fellow political travelers.
While no Nigeria lawyer or student of the Nigeria Constitution can challenge the constitutionality of the sharia legal system particularly in civil proceeding involving questions of Islamic personal law “section 262 of the Nigeria Constitution serious problems are bound to arise in respect of laws made by States in respect of Criminal Jurisdiction of the Sharia which not only conflict with federal laws but the express provisions of the constitution. A legitimate question at this point is whether the Criminal Jurisdiction of the Sharia Court in a State like Niger State can override the penal code (a federal law) as applicable in Niger State. Yet another relevant question is if there is no offence in the Penal Code for marrying more than 4 wives, a state sharia code prescribing punishing such an act can be valid. And most importantly under the principle of legislative supremacy of Federal laws is whether a state law prescribing death penalty for a state (sharia) offence can override a federal (penal) code in which such an offence is neither known to law nor at all punishable?”
Finally, in view of the Constitutional Supremacy of the Federal High Court to the Upper Area Court, whether the upper Area court in view of he leave already granted Mallam Bello Masaba by Justice G.O Kolawole of the Federal High Court, the Minna Upper Area Court can continue with the trial of Mallam Masaba?
The new few months when all the above knotty legal puzzles will be untied by the appropriate courts will give a clearer picture of the constitutionality of the peculiar brand of sharia introduced into Northern Nigeria by former Governor Sani Yerima. The several case law decisions on the matter will be up for consideration.
A.G Ogun State V Aderuagba (1983) NWLR (Pt 3) 395.
A.G Bendel V A.G.F (1982) 3 NCLRI
A.G Ondo State V A.G.F (2002) 6 S.C. (pt 1)
However, one aspect of the case requires comment is the fatwa supposedly passed on Mallam Masaba by the Jamat. If the recent decisions of the Supreme Court are anything to go bye, the pronouncement of death sentence under Islamic law is not for private individuals but a matter left in persons skilled in Islamic jurisprudence. In Kaza V State. The appellant and 5 others had killed the deceased for blasphemy against the Holy Prophet (S.A.W). When the deceased was to be killed, one of the accused persons had read a portion of the Quran that allegedly sanctioned the killing of any one who insulted the Holy Prophet. The accused persons thus felt justified to kill the blasphemer. At their trial the accused person and other pleaded the act of blasphemy of the deceased as the basis of the defence of provocation for killing the deceased. The Supreme Court would have none of this puerile and ignorant defence.
“Per Muhammed JSC” Islamic law has not left the killing open in the hands of private individuals. The offence alleged has to be established through evidence before a court of law. The court itself will have to implore the professional dexterity in treating the case by allowing fair hearing and excluding all the inadmissible evidence or those persons who may fall within the exemption clause such as an infant, imbecile or those who suffer mental delusion. Thus, the killing is controlled and sanctioned by the authorities.
Abdul Qadar Oudah in his Criminal Law of Islam Vol. 111 (Improved edition) 1999 stated that if any of the crimes involving HUDDUD (fixed punishment) QISAS (Retaliation) and TA’ AZIR (penal/exemplary punishments) is imputed to a person he will be prosecuted against in a court of law. If the charge against him is established, sentence will accordingly be passed keeping in view the prescribed punishment. If she charge cannot be established, the accused will be acquitted. If the sentence is passed the ruler or competent authority will be responsible for its execution in respect of offences hudood and panel punishments.
His lordship went on to say that “The law will, thus, have set a dangerous precedence if individuals were authorised to take the law into their hands as the appellant and others did in the case. Sharia guarantees and values the sanctity and dignity of human life. That is why it outlaws unlawful killing of human life.
The Quran has several verses in various chapters where it outlaws such nefarious acts. For instance it provides in chapter 6 (Surat – An ‘ Am) verse 161 as follows:-
“And do not kill the souls which Allah has forbidden (to be killed) except by legal right.”
The Prophet (SAW) is reported to have said that the first action to be judged on the Day of Judgment is the spilling of blood.
(See Bulugh Al-Maram Min Adi IIatil Akham by Asqalani page 244. In another Hadith the Prophet is reported to have said that three things have been made illegal to a Muslim:
(i) to spill the blood of another or deprive him of his life
(ii) to deprive him of his property and
(iii) to deprive him of his honour or integrity
(See Forty Traditions of Iman Annewawi) Kaza V State (2008) 1-2 S.C (151 at 226/227.
See also the Sisters cases of Shalla V State (2007) 7010 S.C 107 at 168-170
Yaro V State (2007) 7-10 S.C 77
Which all involve the trial of the 6 accused persons who took part in the extra-judicial killing of Abdullahi Alh. Umaru allegedly for blasphemy against Holy Prophet.
The above legal exposition were quoted verbatim from the judgement of the Supreme Court which remains the final authority on not only on common law but Islamic jurisprudence in Nigeria.
Thus the Jamat are advised to be guided by relevant tenets and jurisprudence of their religion as opposed to ignorant even if popular and politically correct views of what is or is not a violation of Sharia in handling the case of Mallam Bello Masaba the octogenarian polygamist.
On a lighter note, perhaps Baba Masaba ought to return to the South-West where he married many of his wives and will certainly not offend any of the laws.
After all the late business Mogul Cum politician Chief MKO Abiola himself an highly respected Muslim and vice-president of the Supreme Council for Islamic in Nigeria married many wives, although not as many as 86 and had no problems based on his polygamist life-style.
No comments:
Post a Comment