Six years after a WhatsApp song led to a death sentence, Washington is demanding the release of a detained Sufi musician. But a Supreme Court appeal, a regional court ruling and Kano’s resistance expose a deeper crisis over freedom of expression and the limits of religious law in Nigeria.
The United States has intensified pressure on Nigeria to release Sufi Muslim musician Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, whose prolonged detention and potential death sentence have become an international test of the country’s commitment to religious freedom, constitutional rights and the rule of law.
Washington’s intervention raises a difficult question for Nigeria’s legal system. How can a country guarantee freedom of expression and religion in its Constitution while allowing state-level criminal laws to threaten citizens with death for alleged religious insults?
The US Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, Riley M. Barnes, made the demand in written testimony prepared for the Africa Subcommittee of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee on 12 November 2026.
The hearing, titled One Year Later: Assessing Nigeria’s Efforts to Protect Christians and Secure the Middle Belt, examined religious persecution, insecurity and the Nigerian government’s response to attacks on vulnerable communities.
But Barnes also drew attention to the prosecution of Nigerians over alleged blasphemy, including peaceful expressions of religious beliefs.
He told the congressional subcommittee:
“We are actively pressing the Government of Nigeria and calling for the release of Sufi singer, Yahaya Sharif-Aminu.”
He reiterated Washington’s position that Nigeria should stop enforcing blasphemy laws and, ideally, repeal the provisions entirely.
Barnes disclosed that Sharia penal codes operate in 12 Nigerian states. He described Nigeria as one of eight countries worldwide where blasphemy offences can attract the death penalty, alongside Iran and Pakistan.
The US official characterised prosecutions over perceived insults to Islam, including peaceful speech, as a serious human rights concern.
The intervention places Nigeria’s treatment of religious minorities under renewed international scrutiny, particularly because the person at the centre of the controversy is a Muslim whose beliefs and religious expression differ from those of the dominant interpretation in his community.
Six Years in Detention for a WhatsApp Song
Sharif-Aminu’s ordeal began in February 2020 when he shared Hausa-language audio messages containing lyrics he had composed in a private WhatsApp group.
According to information examined by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the messages reflected his beliefs as a member of a Sufi religious community that holds Senegalese cleric Shaykh Ibrahim Niasse in high regard.
Some members of the Muslim community considered the lyrics insulting to Prophet Muhammad.
The controversy escalated rapidly.
In early March 2020, a mob reportedly gathered around his family home and set the property ablaze. His family members were forced to flee, while Sharif-Aminu went into hiding.
The situation eventually led to his arrest by Kano State authorities.
On 10 August 2020, the Hausawa Filin Hockey Upper Sharia Court convicted him under Section 382(b) of the Kano State Sharia Penal Code and sentenced him to death by hanging.
One of the most troubling aspects of the original prosecution was the absence of legal representation.
The musician was facing the ultimate punishment without a lawyer representing his interests during the trial.
On 21 January 2021, the Kano State High Court overturned the conviction, citing serious procedural irregularities, including the failure to provide legal representation in a capital case.
But the victory was incomplete.
Rather than dismissing the charges, the High Court ordered a retrial, leaving Sharif-Aminu exposed to another prosecution and the possibility of a fresh death sentence.
The Court of Appeal upheld the retrial order on 17 August 2022, with a dissenting judge arguing that the procedural failures warranted dismissal.
An important legal distinction remains: Although US officials have described Sharif-Aminu as being on death row, his original 2020 death sentence was overturned. He remains detained under the outstanding retrial process and faces the possibility of another death sentence if convicted.
Supreme Court Delay Raises Fresh Questions
In November 2022, Sharif-Aminu appealed to the Supreme Court of Nigeria, challenging the retrial order and the constitutionality of the blasphemy provision.
The appeal challenges Section 382(b), which criminalises expressions considered abusive towards Prophet Muhammad and prescribes capital punishment.
In September 2025, the Supreme Court held a preliminary hearing that allowed the appeal to proceed.
The substantive constitutional questions, however, remain unresolved.
The case became more contentious in June 2026 when a scheduled hearing for 25 June was cancelled.
According to Sharif-Aminu’s legal representatives, the court did not immediately provide another hearing date.
In a letter dated 14 September 2026, his lawyers renewed their request for accelerated proceedings, arguing that other criminal appeals filed after his 2022 case had been scheduled for hearing.
The lawyers also questioned why a capital constitutional appeal that had already completed its briefing process was still awaiting substantive consideration.
Their concern is that prolonged judicial delay risks turning the legal process itself into an additional punishment.
For a defendant who has already spent more than six years in detention, the absence of a clear judicial timetable raises questions about access to justice and the practical protection of constitutional rights.
ECOWAS Court Has Already Ruled Against Kano’s Blasphemy Laws
Perhaps the most significant development in the wider legal controversy occurred on 9 April 2025.
The Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) delivered a landmark judgment in a case brought by the Incorporated Trustees of Expression Now Human Rights Initiative against the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The regional court declared Section 210 of the Kano State Penal Code and Section 382(b) of the Kano State Sharia Penal Code incompatible with Nigeria’s international obligations to guarantee freedom of expression.
It ordered Nigeria to repeal or amend the offending provisions and similar laws to bring them into compliance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The court acknowledged that governments have legitimate reasons to protect public order and respect for religious beliefs.
But it found that imposing death sentences for alleged religious insults was disproportionate.
In one of its strongest observations, the court stated:
“Insulting someone is a verbal offence, not a violent crime.”
The judgment is particularly important because the regional court directly examined the tension between religious sensitivities and the fundamental right to express opinions.
However, the decision did not automatically release Sharif-Aminu or dispose of his individual criminal proceedings.
It was a separate human rights case, although it concerned the same Kano State legal provision underpinning his prosecution.
More troubling was the Kano State Government’s reaction.
Following the judgment, the state Commissioner for Information and Internal Affairs, Ibrahim Waiya, defended the laws, insisting that the government would not be deterred by external pressure.
He maintained that the provisions reflected the religious and moral values of Kano’s predominantly Muslim population, adding that they would remain firmly in place.
That position exposes the practical challenge facing Nigeria.
A regional court has ordered legislative changes, but the state government has publicly defended the very provisions the court found incompatible with international human rights obligations.
United Nations Declares His Detention Arbitrary
The international criticism did not begin with Washington.
In Opinion No. 32/2024, adopted in August 2024 and published on 24 September 2024, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention examined Sharif-Aminu’s case.
The Working Group concluded that his detention was arbitrary under three categories of international human rights violations.
These concerned the legal basis for detention, the exercise of protected fundamental freedoms and discrimination linked to his religious beliefs.
The UN body found that his prosecution violated protections under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
It also found that his right to a fair trial had been violated during the original proceedings because he was not provided with legal assistance.
The Working Group recommended his immediate release, compensation and an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding his detention.
An important detail in the opinion is that Nigeria did not respond to the Working Group’s communication seeking clarification about his detention and the legal basis for continuing the prosecution.
The Working Group also made clear that, although it could not determine the fairness of the proposed retrial from the available information, its finding that his detention violated protected rights meant that he should not be tried.
The European Parliament had also adopted a resolution on 13 February 2025 calling for his immediate and unconditional release, access to medical care and the abolition of blasphemy laws.
The growing number of international interventions suggests that the case has moved beyond the boundaries of Kano State’s criminal justice system.
The Wider Problem: Twelve States and a Constitutional Contradiction
Sharif-Aminu’s prosecution highlights a broader challenge in Nigeria’s legal architecture.
Sections 38 and 39 of the 1999 Constitution protect freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as freedom of expression.
These guarantees include the right to hold opinions and communicate ideas without unlawful interference.
Yet 12 northern states operate Sharia-based legal frameworks containing provisions criminalising blasphemy.
The Kano provision under which Sharif-Aminu was convicted carries the possibility of capital punishment.
Nigeria’s federal Criminal Code, by comparison, contains a separate provision under Section 204 criminalising certain public insults to religion, with a maximum prison sentence of two years.
This difference in punishment was among the concerns highlighted in the United Nations proceedings, particularly in relation to the treatment of religious minorities and Muslims whose beliefs differ from dominant interpretations.
The US Commission on International Religious Freedom’s October 2026 country brief confirms that the 12 northern states continue to maintain Sharia-based legislative frameworks containing blasphemy provisions.
It also reports that, although available information indicates that blasphemy-related death sentences have not been carried out, authorities continue to enforce such laws through imprisonment, hard labour and corporal punishment.
The distinction matters.
The absence of executions does not remove the threat created by laws that allow a person to be sentenced to death for peaceful expression.
It also does not explain why an individual whose original conviction was overturned continues to spend years in detention.
Washington’s $9 Million Commitment Adds Another Dimension
Barnes also disclosed that the US Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour obligated $9 million earlier in 2026.
The funding is intended to support early-warning and response programmes, provide legal defence for people accused of blasphemy and document religious freedom violations in Nigeria’s Middle Belt.
The allocation is broader than Sharif-Aminu’s individual case and should not be understood as funding exclusively for his legal defence.
Nevertheless, it signals that Washington is combining diplomatic pressure with financial support for programmes intended to address religious freedom violations.
Barnes said the United States would continue assessing Nigeria’s progress through measurable reductions in attacks and violence and demonstrated efforts to prosecute those responsible.
His testimony also made clear that Washington expects Nigeria to protect vulnerable Christian communities and other Nigerians facing persecution because of their faith.
That broader approach is significant.
Religious freedom cannot depend on whether the affected person belongs to a majority or minority religious community. Nor should protection against persecution be reserved for one faith.
A Test of Nigeria’s Constitutional Democracy
Sharif-Aminu’s case now sits at the intersection of three unresolved questions.
Can a state criminal law remain enforceable when a regional court has declared its provisions incompatible with freedom of expression?
Can a government claim to uphold religious freedom while individuals face prolonged detention for peacefully expressing religious beliefs?
And can the Supreme Court allow a case involving a potential death sentence to remain without an effective timetable for final determination?
The Nigerian government faces growing pressure from the United States, the United Nations, the European Parliament and regional human rights institutions.
But international statements alone will not resolve the legal contradiction.
The decisive steps must come through Nigeria’s courts, its federal and state governments, and ultimately the political will to reconcile existing criminal laws with constitutional and international obligations.
For Sharif-Aminu, the immediate question is whether he will be released or continue waiting for a judicial decision that has already taken years.
For Nigeria, the stakes are considerably larger.
The country must demonstrate whether its constitutional guarantees protect every citizen equally, including those whose religious beliefs or artistic expressions are unpopular.
A democracy is tested not only by its willingness to protect majority beliefs, but also by how it treats citizens who hold different views.
The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to provide clarity on a question that has remained unresolved for far too long.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
Join the debate; let’s know your opinion.