Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This study investigates the legal and social implications of the divergent frameworks of the Nigerian 1999 Constitution and Sharia law in Northern Nigeria, focusing on religious blasphemy and jungle justice. The problem stems from the coexistence of these two legal systems, resulting in significant conflicts and ambiguities that undermine the effective administration of justice and the protection of fundamental human rights. Accusations of religious blasphemy often lead to jungle justice, where mobs bypass formal legal procedures to mete out extrajudicial punishments, deepening communal divisions and eroding public trust in the judicial system. Guided by John Rawls’s Theory of Justice, the study employs a descriptive research design to explore these issues in-depth. Data were collected in Kano and Sokoto states using purposive and stratified random sampling techniques. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and In-Depth Interviews (IDIs) with community leaders, religious leaders, legal practitioners, and civil society organizations were conducted, supplemented by secondary sources such as books, journal articles, and online publications. Content analysis was used to analyse the data. The findings reveal that the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, and expression, often clashes with Sharia law, which prescribes severe penalties for blasphemy. This divergence contributes to jungle justice as communities, frustrated with the formal legal system’s inadequacies, resort to extrajudicial actions. Efforts to harmonize these frameworks face challenges, including conflicting legal philosophies, cultural and religious sensitivities, jurisdictional ambiguities, and human rights concerns. The study therefore recommends an urgent need for legislative reforms, judicial clarity, cultural sensitivity and strengthening legal institutions.
A. V. Ishola (Thu,) studied this question.