SENTENCING UNDER SHARI’AH AND NIGERIAN LEGISLATION: PRACTICE, PROCEDURE AND CONTEMPORARY CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES

Abstract

The imposition of something disobliging by an authority upon a person due to an unacceptable behaviour by the person to the authority is known as punishment. Considering the fact that there are different theories of criminal behaviour, the commonly known justifications for imposition of punishment are deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation. The fundamental objective of punishment in all legal systems is prevention of crime for a cleaner society. Significantly, every legal system admits that the Islamic law possessed some certain unique features that trigger effectiveness in achieving its goals compared to the Nigerian counterpart, inclusive of Sentencing under Shari’ah and Nigerian Legislation, Practice and Procedure with Contemporary Constitutional Challenges. Against this background, the author argued the purview of dissimilarities between sentencing under Islamic law and Nigerian legislation. The methodology adopted is doctrinal, as it was found that sentencing under Shari’ah and Nigerian legislation are relatively at odds over procedure and execution; and independent of each other. The paper therefore concluded that the modes of sentencing under the Islamic law and Nigerian legal system should be genuinely harmonized, unified and standardized for a plausible co-existent and tolerant legal system. The author maintained that harmonizing sentencing from these two legal frameworks should be prospective in bridging the gaps between religious dictates and constitutional safeguards.