The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has strongly condemned the reported decision of a Magistrate Court in Kano which allegedly ordered two popular TikTok content creators, Idris Mai Wushirya and Basira Yar Guda, to marry each other within 60 days as part of a judgment over an “indecent” video they allegedly shared online.
The unprecedented ruling has sparked outrage across the country, with legal practitioners, human rights groups, and social commentators describing it as a blatant abuse of judicial authority and a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Nigerian Constitution.
According to reports from Kano, the two social media influencers were arraigned before the Magistrate Court presided over by Magistrate Halima Wali, on allegations that they produced and circulated “indecent and immoral” content on TikTok, which allegedly offended public decency.
Following the trial, the court reportedly found them guilty of moral misconduct and, in a shocking move, ordered that they formalize their relationship through marriage within 60 days as part of the sentence. The decision immediately drew condemnation, with many Nigerians describing it as “medieval,” “misogynistic,” and “grossly unconstitutional.”
The story, which quickly went viral on social media platforms, prompted the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to issue a strong public statement rejecting the order and warning of the dangerous precedent it could set if left unchallenged.
In a statement signed by Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, the association expressed “serious concern” over the development, describing it as a grave misunderstanding of judicial power and a clear violation of the rights of the individuals concerned.
“The NBA notes with serious concern reports of a Magistrate Court in Kano allegedly ordering two popular TikTok content creators, Idris Mai Wushirya and Basira Yar Guda, to formalise their relationship through marriage within 60 days following a case arising from the publication of an indecent video,” the statement read.
“This development reflects a grave misunderstanding of the limits of judicial authority under the Nigerian Constitution and constitutes an affront to the fundamental rights of the individuals concerned. No court has the power to compel any person to marry another person or to mandate two persons to marry each other. It is indeed unconstitutional and therefore unlawful for any court to purport to have power to make such an order.”
The NBA stressed that marriage, by its very nature, must be voluntary, entered into by free and consenting adults. It cannot, under any circumstance, be used as a form of punishment, moral correction, or judicial remedy.
Citing constitutional provisions, the association noted that such an order violates several fundamental rights enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) — particularly the rights to personal liberty, dignity of the human person, and privacy.
“No court in Nigeria possesses the constitutional authority to compel two persons to marry, and any attempt to do so violates the rights to personal liberty, dignity of the human person, and privacy,” the statement continued.
The association warned that judicial overreach of this nature not only infringes on citizens’ personal freedoms but also undermines public confidence in the judiciary, an institution meant to safeguard justice and constitutional values.
“The courts must remain the bastion of justice and protectors of constitutional rights, not instruments for enforcing social conformity or moral compulsion,” the statement emphasized.
In its official position, the NBA called for an immediate review of the judgment delivered by Magistrate Halima Wali, urging the Kano State Judiciary and the National Judicial Council (NJC) to take urgent steps to prevent a recurrence of such unconstitutional orders.
“The NBA therefore calls for an immediate review of this decision by Magistrate Halima Wali and urges the relevant judicial authorities to take steps to prevent a recurrence of such unconstitutional orders,” it stated.
The association also directed its Citizens’ Liberties Committee and Women’s Forum to monitor the situation closely to ensure that the rule of law prevails and that the individuals involved are not subjected to any form of coercion or unlawful enforcement of the purported marriage order.
“No person should ever be coerced, directly or indirectly, into marriage by any institution of the state, including the courts,” the statement concluded.
The alleged court order has generated widespread debate in legal, social, and religious circles. Human rights advocates have described it as a dangerous intrusion into personal freedom and a mockery of the justice system.
Several lawyers have noted that while the court may have the authority to impose fines or custodial sentences for acts deemed indecent under the law, it has no jurisdiction to dictate personal relationships or compel marriage.
A constitutional lawyer, Barrister Nkechi Obianuju, told reporters that the case highlights a “disturbing trend of moral policing under the guise of justice.”
“Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults,” she said. “The moment the state or the courts begin to dictate who should marry whom, we are heading toward authoritarianism and the erosion of individual autonomy.”
Another legal analyst, Dr. Ismail Tanko of Bayero University, Kano, stated that while the court may have sought to discourage immorality, its approach “fundamentally contradicts both the Constitution and Islamic principles that require mutual consent in marriage.”
The NBA’s statement also reignited discussions about the need for continuous judicial education and reform to ensure that magistrates and lower court judges operate strictly within the bounds of constitutional authority.
Analysts argue that this incident underscores the importance of human rights training for judicial officers, particularly in cases involving morality, religion, and cultural norms.
Legal scholars note that such misinterpretations of judicial power could erode confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality and independence, especially in northern states where issues of morality and faith often intersect with the law.
The controversy surrounding the Kano Magistrate Court’s decision has once again thrust Nigeria’s judiciary into the spotlight, raising serious questions about judicial overreach, constitutional literacy, and the protection of individual rights.
While the court’s alleged order may have been intended as a moral corrective measure, the Nigerian Bar Association’s swift and unequivocal response serves as a reminder that justice must always align with the rule of law and constitutional freedoms.
As the legal community and human rights advocates call for a review of the case, one thing is clear: no court, in any part of Nigeria, has the authority to compel marriage as punishment.
The NBA’s intervention, led by Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, underscores a critical truth — that marriage must remain a matter of choice, not coercion, and the judiciary must always remain a defender, not violator, of fundamental rights.
One Comment
Timely intervention by the NBA.
They should monitor the situation and ensure that the rights of the persons involved is not infringe upon.