Albayan Islamic Secondary School Jos

21/11/2025

Please Click on the below link to follow our school Tiktok account.

5 Followers, 3 Following, 4 Likes - Watch awesome short videos created by ALBAYAN SCHOOL JOS

15/11/2025

KETA KUNDIN TSARIN MULKI: GAZAWAR DSS DA JINKIRIN SHARI'AR DR. MUHAMMAD NAZEEF YUNUS

Dr. Muhammad Nazeef Yunus, Malamine a Jami’ar Jihar Kogi kuma Daraktane na shaharariyar makarantarnan ta Albayan Islamic Secondary School da take garin Jos, an k**a shi tsakad dare a gidansa a ranar 30/10/2013, daga Hukumar Tsaro ta Kasa (DSS) a lokacin da Najeriya ke yaki da da azzalumar kugiyarnan ta Boko Haram. Jami’an sun zarge shi da tsara ayyukan Boko Haram a jihar Kogi, suna ikirarin cewa ya dauki ‘yan ta’adda kuma ya shirya kai hare-hare, bisa ga shaidun wasu da ake tsare da su wadanda s**a ce an tilasta musu su nuna shi. Tun farko, Dr. Nazeef Yunus ya musanta dukkan zarge-zargen da ake mishi. Ya bayyana wa ‘yan jarida cikin hawaye cewa, “Ni ba membam Boko Haram bane kuma bana da alaka da su.” Tarihin karatunsa, ciki har da digirinsa na Ph.D. da ya rubuta da ke s**ar akidar Boko Haram a matsayin sunbar tafarkin addini Musulinci, ya saba da zarge-zargen. Kungiyoyi k**ar Jama’atu Nasril Islam (JNI), JIBWIS, da Jami’ar Kogi duk sun karyata zarge-zargen a matsayin babu tushe. Duk da kiranye-kiranyen al-uma da kuma gibin da ake gani a shari’ar, hukumar DSS ta ci gaba da matsa lamba, abin da ya nuna manyan matsaloli a tsarin tsaro da shari’a a Najeriya.
Tsawon shekara goma sha biyu na shari’ar, laifin da ake tuhumar Dr. Nazeef Yunus ya nuna gazawar tsarin shari’a wajen tabbatar da wanzar da shari’a acikin sauri k**ar yadda Sashe na 36(4) na Kundin Tsarin Mulki na kasa da dokoki na duniya na ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) Article 14(3)(c) s**a tanada. Tun daga 2013, shari’ar ta samu sauyin alkalai hudu, masu gabatar da kara (prosecutors), goma sha hudu da shaidu goma sha daya, ba tare da wata shaida mai karfi da ta danganta Dr. Nazeef da ta’addanci ba ko alaka da Boko Haram. Babban jinkiri a wannan shariar ya faru ne a ƙarƙashin alkalin da ya jagoranci shari’a na biyu, wanda aka tilastama mai da fayil din kara zuwa ga shugaban kotun (federal high court) bayan masu gabatar da kara sun kasa kawo wanda zaiba bada shaida guda daya a zaman shari’a goma a jere cikin shekaru biyu. Wannan ya nuna wani mummunan amfani da tsarin shari’a wajen jinkirta shari’a. hakan yasa alkalin yace bazeci gaba da shara`ar ba.
Bayan haka, umurnin gudanar da shari’a daga farko ya kara tauye hakkin Dr. Nazeef, inda aka soke shekaru da dama na shari’ar da aka fara kuma aka tilasta shi sake fuskantar shari’a daga farko. Duk da cewa masu gabatar da kara sun nemi afara daga farko, kokarin su na juyar da wannan bukata ya nuna rashin kwanciyar hankali a shari’ar. Sannan sun rage jerin shaidu zuwa jami’an DSS uku kawai, wadanda ba su da alaka kai tsaye da wanda ake tuhuma kafin kamun sa. Wannan ya haifar da tambayoyi game da sahihanci da muhimmancin shaidar da aka gabatar bayan jinkiri mai tsawo, kuma ya take hakkin wanda ake tuhuma na zargin rashin laifi (Sashe 36(5)) na Kundin Tsarin Mulki na kasa ta hanyar sanya shi cikin rashin tabbas na dogon lokaci ba tare da hukunci ba.
Binciken da ya shafi shaidan karshe, jami’in DSS wanda ya bayyana a ranar 12/11/2025, ya nuna sabon take hakkin wanda ake kara. Shaidan ya nemi ya bada shaida fuska a rufe daga alkalin, wanda ake tuhuma, da lauyi, yayin da kuma aka kare shi daga idon jama’a. Duk da cewa lauyoyin wanda ake kara sun amince da kareshi daga idon jama’a bisa hukuncin da aka yi a baya, sun ki amincewa da rufe fuska, suna nuni da hakkin wanda ake tuhuma na fuskantar shaidan da yi masa tambaya dogaro da (Sashe 36(6)(d)) na Kundin Tsarin Mulkin kasa. Rashin yarda da cire abin rufe fuska saboda tsaro ya sanya kotu dage shari’a zuwa 16/1/2026. domin alkali ya yanke hukunci akan Wannan dabi’ar boye shaidan daga wanda ake tuhuma da alkalai yana take ka’idojin gaskiya da shari’a.
A takaice, jinkirin shekaru goma sha biyu, sake fara sharia daga farko, da matsalolin gabatar da shaidu suna nuna cewa DSS ko dai ba ta da jujja akan wanda ake zargi, ko kuma tana amfani da dabarun jinkirta shari’a domin gajiyar da wanda ake tuhuma da lauyoyinsa. Wannan aiki yana cin zarafi ga tsarin shari’a. Don gyara, akwai bukatar masu madafin iko su hanzarta shiga tsakani. Kotu ya k**ata ta yi la’akari da Sashe 36(4) da kuma shari’o’in da s**a gabata k**ar AG Anambra State v. Uba, wadanda ke nuna cewa jinkiri mara tushe na iya haifar da dakatar da shari’a. Dole ne a mayar da hankali kan ladabi da kwarewar masu gabatar da kara, sannan kotu ta kafa ka’idoji bayyanannu game da bayyana shaidu da fuska ga alkalai da wanda ake tuhuma, domin tabbatar da cewa neman adalci bai take hakkin shari’a mai kyau ba saboda tsaro mai rashin tabbas.
Allah Kashiga Lamarin Wada aka zalumta, Ka Kuma Tonawa Azzalumai Asiri…

Aminu Umar
LL.B, B.Sc, LL.M, M.Sc,
PGDE, Ph.D. Candidate.

14/11/2025

WHEN JUSTICE SLEEPS: HOW NIGERIA’S LEGAL SYSTEM FAILED A SCHOLAR AND BETRAYED THE RULE OF LAW

Dr. Muhammad Nazeef Yunus, a respected lecturer at Kogi State University and Director Albayan Islamic Secondary School Jos, was arrested on October 30, 2013, by the Department of State Services (DSS) amid Nigeria's intense fight against Boko Haram. Officials alleged he coordinated a Boko Haram cell in Kogi State, claiming he recruited militants and plotted attacks, based primarily on statements from co-detainees who purportedly implicated him under duress. From the outset, Dr. Nazeef Yunus denied all accusations. Tearfully addressing journalists, he declared, “I am not a member of Boko Haram and have no connections to them.”, insisting he has no connections to the sect. His academic record including a PhD thesis condemning Boko Haram’s ideology as un-Islamic directly contradicted the claims. The Jama’atu Nasril Islam (JNI), JIBWIS, and Kogi State University all dismissed the charges as baseless. Yet, despite public outcry and evident gaps in the prosecution’s case, the machinery of state pressed on, exposing deep flaws in Nigeria’s security and judicial systems.
The twelve-year duration of the criminal trial against Dr. Muhammad Nazeef Yunus, represents a fundamental breakdown in the criminal justice system’s ability to guarantee a speedy trial as mandated by Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and international instruments like Article 14(3)(c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This stands as a textbook example of justice denied through delay. Since 2013, the trial has cycled through four judges, fourteen prosecutors, and eleven witnesses, without a single piece of credible evidence linking Dr. Nazeef to terrorism. The most egregious delay occurred under the second presiding judge, who was forced to return the file to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court after the prosecution failed to present a single witness over ten consecutive sittings in two years. The judge's observation of a deliberate attempt to delay the case highlights a serious instance of prosecutorial abuse of process.
The subsequent order for a trial de novo (starting afresh) further compounded the violation of Dr. Nazeef rights, effectively nullifying years of previous proceedings and forcing the accused to endure the trial process anew. While the prosecution initially requested the de novo process, their later attempt to reverse this request, followed by the court's decision to proceed with a fresh start, exemplifies the instability plaguing the case. The prosecution then significantly reduced its witness list to only three DSS officers, none of whom reportedly had a direct link to the accused prior to his arrest. This tactic raises serious questions about the probative value and relevance of the evidence being presented after such a long delay, simultaneously breaching the constitutional right to the presumption of innocence (Section 36(5)) by subjecting the accused to prolonged uncertainty and potential punishment without conviction.
The controversy surrounding the final prosecution witness, a DSS officer who appeared on November 12, 2025, marks the most recent violation of the right to a fair hearing. The witness sought to testify with his face covered from the Judge, the accused, and the defence counsel, while also being screened from the public audience. Although the defence conceded to the public screening based on previous rulings, they vehemently objected to the facial concealment, citing the constitutional right of the accused to confront and effectively cross-examine their accuser (Section 36(6)(d)). Cross-examination is a cornerstone of a fair trial, requiring the ability to observe the witness’s demeanour and credibility, which is impossible if the face is masked. The witness’s refusal to remove the mask, citing safety concerns, placed the court in a dilemma, leading to an adjournment for a ruling on January 16, 2026. This practice of concealing a witness's identity from the core trial participants fundamentally infringes upon the principles of orality and public justice.
In summary, the cumulative effect of a twelve-year delay, multiple judicial resets (de novo trial), and ongoing obstruction tactics concerning witness presentation suggests that the prosecution, the DSS, is either incapable of effectively prosecuting this matter or is deliberately employing tactics of attrition to wear down the accused and the defence. This conduct is an abuse of the judicial process. To rectify this, urgent interventions are required. Legally, the court should strongly consider the implications of Section 36(4) and relevant case law, such as the principle established in cases like A-G Anambra State v. Uba, which often dictates that protracted, unjustifiable delays warrant the termination of proceedings. Reform must focus on prosecutorial discipline; judicial panels must hold agencies like the DSS accountable for the cost both financial and constitutional of their procedural failings. Furthermore, the judiciary must establish clear, non-negotiable protocols for witness anonymity that mandate facial visibility to the presiding judge and the accused, ensuring that the search for justice does not sacrifice the right to a fair trial on the altar of vague security concerns.

Aminu Umar
LL.B, B.Sc, LL.M, M.Sc,
PGDE, Ph.D. Candidate

14/11/2025