Admissibility of Circumstantial Evidence in Hudud: Examining Pregnancy as Proof of Zina in the Sharia Courts of Northern Nigeria
Admissibility of Circumstantial Evidence in Hudud: Examining Pregnancy as Proof of Zina in the Sharia Courts of Northern Nigeria
Abdulmajeed Hassan Bello
 
Abstract: Islamic criminal law consists of three categories of crimes. Hadd and qisas are regarded as prescribed by God whereas ta’zar crimes are left to the discretion of the rulers. A majority of Muslim jurists hold that circumstantial evidence is not a valid method of proof in hadd cases, including zina (unlawful sexual intercourse). However, Maliki and some Hanbali jurists hold that circumstantial evidence is admissible in hadd cases. In 2002, Safiyyatu Hussaini and Amina Lawal were convicted by lower courts for zina based on circumstantial evidence because they were pregnant without being married. However, the Courts of Appeal of both Sokoto and Katsina states overturned the judgements of lower courts concluding that unmarried pregnancy by itself is not a conclusive proof of zina. The Appeal Courts also noted that several aspects of due process required by Sharia were compromised during the trials. This article analyses these decisions in the light of detailed account of admissibility of circumstantial evidence in Sharia and concludes that and the Courts of Appeal have set good precedents in accordance with Sharia to reject pregnancy as proof of zina in the cases of unmarried women.

 


Please Sign in if already registered Subscriber.

Or

Please Register and make the necessary subscription payment to activate your account.

Adobe Reader