|
Extrajudicial Execution Of Muhammad Yusuf And Legality Of Boko Haram By Barr. Ja’afar Ibrahim It is quite clear that so many Nigerians among which lawyers, human right activists, and some Muslims scholars expressed dismay and outcry regarding the recent extrajudicial execution of Boko Haram leader, Muhammad Yusuf, allegedly carried out by Nigeria police Force. Suffice to say that, according to the aforementioned personalities, the method by which the execution of Muhammad Yusuf was carried out amounts to violation and breach of the laid own procedure of carrying executions and against Fundamental Rights enshrined in our constitutions and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the provision of Shari’a Law which is also an applicable law in Maiduguri. Before digesting the controversial issue of extrajudicial execution, it is good to go through the ideology and dogma of Boko Haram. LEGALITY AND CONSTITUTIONALITY OF BOKO HARAM Our grand norms the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria makes it lawful for a citizen to have a belief, thought, conscience and religion and as well as having right to change religion or belief and also it is a right given to him to propagate such belief. Section 38 (1) of The 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria provides that. “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including to change his belief and freedom (either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” By virtue of the above section, Muhammad Yusuf had a legal right to propagate his belief of Boko Haram i.e. Western Education is prohibited, and nowhere in our applicable laws make it offence to denounce or discard western education. With due respect and decorum, if there is any provision in any of our applicable laws let the legal luminaries counter this challenge. Boko means any subject or course originated from west that is taught in the universities down to the nursery schools and/or taught in any means be it electronically or otherwise. Whereas Haram linguistically means prohibition while in Islamic jurisprudence connotes an act or omission that attracts punishment if breached or reward if done. (Al-wajiz fi Usul al-Fiqh page 40) According to Muhammad Yusuf any education be it western or otherwise that is contrary to Islamic principles is Haram i.e. prohibited. This ideology is in line with Islamic principles and no any Islamic erudite scholar of whatever caliber of knowledge can contradict him, but would it be Haram by being knowledgeable in what is Haram? Certainly the answer is No. Knowing or acquiring any education that is harm is not Haram, but putting it into practice by fully believing in it, or trying to legalize it, is only what would be termed as Haram. JURISPRUDENTIAL APPROACH TO THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF HARAM Haram jurisprudential can be seen in a broader sense as anything that Almighty Allah enjoined us to do, which if we do Almighty Allah rewards us and our refusal makes us sinners and attracts punishment in our mundane life or hereafter. So also vice versa anything that Almighty Allah enjoined us to avoid and the avoidance of which is rewarded and the commission of which attracts punishment Haram is categorically classified into two Haramun Li Zatihi and Haramun Li Ghairihi Haramun Li Zatihi is what naturally and originally prohibited such as murder, genocide, adultery, robbery etc all these thing where prohibited because they violate the six objective principle that Shari’a protects which religion and religious right, progeny, honour and dignity, property, life and intellect. ( Q6;151, 24;27 49;12, 5;4, 4;135, 2;256, 5;9;7, 119;90, 8;41) (see also Alwajiz fi usul al-Fiqh page 40-42) Where anything of the aforementioned objectives will not be protected unless Haram (unlawful ) is committed, Shari’a gives permission to do so, for instance one is allowed to eat flesh of carcass in a journey for him to survive where there is no food, also one will not be killed for a murder he committed in protecting his own life by means of self defence. Likewise even if Boko is prohibited it will be permissible in order to protect any of the aforementioned objectives because in our modern world of today hardly to achieve the above objectives without Western Education no matter how little it is. Haram Li Ghairihi is anything that initially permissible but prohibited due to some circumstance without which that circumstance is permissible. contract is permissible but it is prohibited during the hour of Friday prayers, also marital consummation between husband and wife is permissible but prohibited during menstruation period likewise seeking knowledge is permissible but prohibited if it will tantamount to disbelief. So by taking care of the circumstance that will turn permissible to Haram the problem is solved. so by synthesizing western education from unlawful ethics and belief, western education is permissible.
ISLAMIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE VS HARAMUZATION OF KNOWLEDGE The phrase Islamization of Knowledge was first used and proposed by Malaysian scholar Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-attas in his book titled Islam and Secularism, published in 1978. It is a term which describes variety of attempts and approaches to synthesize the ethic of Islam with various professions and field of western or modern thought. The advocates and preachers of this term argue that a body of western knowledge (Boko) that had been so Islamized would not offend the Islamic principles since it would place Islamic ethic before knowledge or curiosity or power, and provide for curtailment of scientific or any professional field of western knowledge that offend those Islamic ethics. In nutshell the aim of Islamization of Knowledge is to inculcate Islamic ethic in western education and discarding all sort of things that are not in conformity with Islamic principles and provide alternative for that. The success of this idea can be seen everywhere in the world for instance in Nigeria where all the banks are conventional but still one of the banks have a product known as Amana Savings and Amana Current Account which are free interest accounts purely designed in conformity with Shari’a law. By having this product under conventional bank is a great achievement of Islamization of Knowledge. The dogma of Muhammad Yusuf and his followers of Boko Harm i.e. western education is prohibited, is what I termed as Haramuzation of Knowledge, deriving the ward Haramuzation from an Arabic word Haram meaning prohibition, couple with the fact that Muhammad Yusuf and his followers uphold that the whole western education is Haram i.e. prohibited and should be avoided in totality without given a room for synthesis. Haramuzation of Knowledge is contrary to the well known Islamic jurisprudential maxim which states that where there is two necessary evils it is permissible to take the less evil and forgo the greater one ( See Qawaid al-Fiqhiya) The evil of being ignorant of western education is greater and above the evil contained in it. In other words the benefit of western education is greater and above its evil for the Muslim community. as such Muslims are permissible to go for western education despite some of its unconformities with Islamic principles which some sees it as sources of evil as described by Dr. M. B. Dalhatu of Dept of Private Law, Faculty of Law, ABU Zaria, in a book titled Contemporary Issue of Islamic Jurisprudence, where he states that “ In an unprecedented manner of today the world has become a manifestation of sin, object savagery, tyranny and poverty, moral decadence, intellectual chaos and a picture of total bankruptcy of man’s faith in salvation through science and technology”
EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTION OF AN INNOCENT BOKO HARAMA LEADER No matter how grievous the offence one committed even before thousands of eye witnesses, shall be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty and should not be punished unless through due process of law. Our laws and international law provide the following rights which the accused person is entitled before passing any sentence against him, that he should: · Be informed promptly in the language he understands and in detail of the nature of the offence · Be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. · Be given a lawyer for his defence free of charge if he cannot afford · Right to fair trial before imposition of the sentence, the trail must be in an open court, right to defence None of above rights contained under 36 (5) (6) of The 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been given to Muhammad Yusuf before deprivation of his right to life under sect 33 (1) of The 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria. The above is the general rule and the only exception under which police can hide for the alleged brutality of extrajudicial execution, is the provision of sec 33 (2)(a)(b)(c) of The 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, which allegedly the police misused or ignorance of its content and its interpretation. Ignorance of our laws by Nigeria police Force is not a hiding cave in which they cannot be brought to book. It is well known legal maxim that, Ignoratia juris non excusat i.e. Ignorance of law is not an excuse. Also by examining section 33(2) of The 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria which provides that, A person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his life in contravention of this section, if he dies as a result of the use, to such extent and in such circumstance as are permitted by law, of such force as is reasonably necessary. a) for the defence of any person from unlawful violence or for the defence of property b) in order to affect lawful arrest or prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; or c) for the purpose of suppressing a riot, insurrection or mutiny. One can conclude that none of the above situations could be said Muhammad Yusuf died as a result, even from the alleged official statement of the Commissioner of Police for Maiduguri State. And no any reasonability of necessary force could said to had been applied and result the death of Muhammad Yusuf, his followers and other innocents person, who were armless compared to the militant of Niger Delta. Had I have any authority of transferring police officers I would have transferred the culprits among them to Niger Delta where they can apply the above section 33 (2) of The 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, and to put their experience into practice against the militants as they allegedly did at Maiduguri against Boko Haram members and innocent citizens. To rest my case, I will end up saying that, had Muhammad Yusuf is alive he would not have forgiven me by using constitutional provisions to protect his inalienable rights, but as a minister in the temple of justice, this will not be a hindrance of doing justice to him despite his short comings, which I also hope will not be an obstacle to Mr. President in doing justice when he receives the report of the committee he inaugurated to investigate the matter.
Barr. Ja’afar Ibrahim Writes from Dala Local Govt Area, Kano
|