Since Ahmed Sani Yerima introduced Sharia criminal justice into Zamfara State in October 1999, despite widespread constitutional controversy, the key question has always been simple: what have been the results?
A criminal justice system should improve law and order, strengthen peace, deter crime, and enhance the security of lives and property. These are the standards by which any criminal code should be judged.
More than two decades later, the experience of the twelve northern states that adopted Sharia criminal law raises serious questions. Rather than becoming models of security and social order, many of these states have struggled with some of the country’s most severe challenges, including terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, communal violence, and widespread insecurity.
A tree is known by its fruits.
This is not an argument about Islam. It is an argument about the wisdom of adopting religious codes as criminal justice codes within a modern constitutional state. The evidence suggests that such systems do not automatically produce peace, security, or justice. In some cases, they may deepen divisions, encourage religious absolutism, and create conditions where harsh punishments are justified by claims of religious authority.
The lesson remains that no group of people should be entrusted with the power to act as though they are administering divine judgment on behalf of God. Criminal offences and punishments should be defined by laws enacted through the institutions of the state, applied equally to all citizens regardless of faith, and grounded in constitutional principles rather than religious doctrine.
Ultimately, the legitimacy of any criminal justice system rests not on the religious fervour of its supporters but on its ability to deliver justice, protect citizens, and maintain public order. By that standard, the results should speak for themselves.
Published by Chuks Nwachuku
