The Viral Video On The Nigerian IGP’S Speech In Kano State: The Islamic Law Perspective By: Dr Abdullahi Ishola

I. BACKGROUNDS On Monday, 14^th May, 2018, the Nigerian Inspector General of Police (IGP), Ibrahim Idris, was in Kano State to commission the Force Technical Unit of the state (see:  http://dailypost.ng/2018/05/17/presidency-reacts-video-igp-idris-struggling-read-speech-kano/). As expected, the IGP delivered a speech at the event. Sometime on Wednesday, 16^th May 2018, by 6: 17AM, less than 48 hours after the event, a video surfaced on social media platforms showing a moment when the IGP was delivering his speech. The viral video, which seems to have been shared for the first time exclusively by the Voice of Liberty Newspaper by that time on its official twitter page @VoiceOfLibertyN (see https://twitter.com/VoiceOfLibertyN/status/996741450254749697; last visited on 19^th May, 2018)  showed the IGP struggling to deliver his speech so much that his aide provided him an assistance while the IGP kept on apologising to the audience. For different versions of the video clip, see: (1) https://www.premiumtimesng.com/video/268718-video-igp-idris-stammers-as-he-reads-from-own-prepared-speech.html; (2)   http://www.pulse.ng/news/local/police-ig-ibrahim-idris-struggles-to-read-speech-id8386252.html; (3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-yAafrev-w; (4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOw717O94iA; (5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnc3P7Kti58 (6) https://twitter.com/VoiceOfLibertyN/status/996741450254749697 Nigeria is a multireligious country with legal pluralism (English-style law; Customary Law and Islamic Law). Beyond arguments, Islamic law is one of the major sources of the Nigerian Legal System, playing an active role in providing legal responses and solutions to issues that may arise. Islamic law has been able to play this role well to the extent that it is contributing immensely to the economic growth, poverty alleviation, job creation and general development of the nation. These huge contributions are clear enough to the unblinded eyes to be seen in the areas of banking, insurance, microfinance, taxation, stocks (e.g. sukūk), and cooperative sectors, among others. This should not be surprising because Islamic law is a complete code of life with answers to any issue that may arise (see Qura’n 6: verse 38). Thus, the viral video of the IGP’s struggling speech cannot be taken out of the purview of Islamic law. Islamic law has something to say on its false creation and careless wide spread. The need to provide the Islamic law perspective on the making and the spread of the video, which is essentially falsely doctored, as shown in the next segment, cannot be farfetched. Muslims are bound by Islamic law and some of them have also been involved in the spread of the video. More so, the video gained wide spread during the Month of Ramaḍān when the Muslims involved are supposed to be fasting and exhibiting an elevated level of consciousness, the fear of Allah (Taqwah; see Qura’n 2: verse183 as attainment Taqwah as the primary objective of fasting for Muslims). Certainly, every Muslim should know the negative implications of spreading false information and defaming another fellow human being and the effects on his fasting during the Ramaḍān. Accordingly, in line with the position of Islamic law encouraging everyone that sees a wrong being committed to curtail it either through his hands, tongues or by silently detesting it in his heart (Ḥadīth of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him), I have attempted in this short write up to present the position of Islamic law on the spread of the false video on the IGP’s speech. Also, in view of some Muslims’ involvement in the spread of the video, especially when it is the Ramaḍān period, I examined the Islamic implications for those involved. The Muslims involved are made to realise the need for them to sincerely regret their actions, repent by not spreading unauthenticated information henceforth and seek forgiveness from Allah as well as from the IGP (perhaps at least by praying for the IGP who has been wrongly defamed if forgiveness cannot be sought from him directly). II. AUTHENTICITY OF THE VIDEO From my observations on the reactions of the people to the video on various social media platforms where the video was shared, some people innocently (though ignorantly) believe the video to be true. The conviction about the authenticity of the video was innocently impressed on such unsuspecting Nigerians by the maker (s) of the video through the assistance purportedly provided to the IGP during his purported predicament to deliver the speech. It is therefore necessary to clarify the authenticity of the video. In this regard, reference shall be made to some analyses and views provided in some quarters, also on the social media platforms (this would mostly be presented anonymously except where the name of the author is shared as well or where I have the permission of the contributor on the relevant platform to reveal the identity). Essentially, the authenticity of the video will be assessed from two angles; the Islamic law techniques and opinions of two experts on the video. 2.1. Authenticity of the Video using the Islamic law Techniques When argument ensues on the authenticity, correctness or truth about anything, issue or event, Islamic law has put in place various techniques to discern the truth. In the first place, there are some presumptions to be upheld in favour of the victim. Thus, whoever claims what is contrary to the presumed regularity bears the burden to establish his claim through cogent evidence such as producing four witnesses, otherwise he remains a liar, not just before his fellow human beings, but also before Allah (Qur’an 24: 13). In this regard, when any damaging information is shared against the personality of any person, the presumption to be held is that, such news or information is false and a fabrication and this is the reaction enjoined on the Muslims (Qur’an 24: 12). Islamic law has adopted a very scientific technique to guard against fabrications in matters of religious guidance provided by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This led to the development of the field of knowledge known as ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth (Science of Hadith). Through this field, any narration credited to the Prophet must follow a clear chain of transmission from the last narrator up to a companion (s) and finally linked to the Prophet. This is called sanad. Since the sanad essentially shows the list of persons that narrated the ḥadīth, every person mentioned in the chain is assessed based on their character to ascertain their trustworthiness and to ensure that they truly met the person from whom they claimed to have received the ḥadīth and that they were truly contemporaries. This exercise is done under what is called Al-Jarhu Wa Attaʿdil, also known as ʿIlm Ar-Rijāl. Based on the above, the Islamic law technique to ascertain the authenticity of the video in question is for the person who first shared it to establish that he was an eye witness at the event supported with other eye witnesses. This has not been done up till now. Those that have believed the video to be true have also not been able to produce an eyewitness to ascertain their claim. Besides, all persons that believed the video to be true could only validly do so if they are sure that the person that shared it is trustworthy. This writer is not aware of any Muslim that took this step before believing in the video, sharing it and making negative comments against the IGP. This is below the standard of behaviour expected of Muslims in circumstances like this. Another principle of Islamic law is that, when there are two conflicting pieces of evidence and one tilts towards the regularity while the other tilts against it, the one titling towards the regularity will be accepted. The regularity is to presume that a person of the status of IGP who has been giving public speeches on several occasions for many years could not be stammering in delivering his speech and projected in the viral video. It is in this regard that the other video shared to rebut the viral video will be accepted as the truth. In other words, the counter-video shared claimed to show the authentic way the IGP perfectly delivered his speech becomes the truth to be accepted until anyone that doubts it can prove that the viral video was not doctored. Accordingly, it is believed that the viral video was doctored while the authentic video of IGP’s speech is the one available on the following addresses:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEPADnAzwwI
2. http://www.ngyab.com/2018/05/18/original-video-of-the-igps-speech-in-kano/
3. http://www.nairaland.com/4511145/original-video-igps-speech-kano

The views expressed by two experts in video editing also supports the failure of the video to satisfy the Islamic legal criteria for accepting any news that can damage the integrity of any person as true. The expert views are discussed in the next segment. 2.2. Expert Opinions on the Authenticity of the Video This writer became convinced that the video was doctored based on the views expressed by two experts. First, a seasoned specialist in video editing (Expert A) expressed his view, via a whatsapp platform, on the video as follows: “This is a simple editing trick aimed at embarrassing him. Although he made a single mistake, the mistake was then allowed to repeat itself severally through the use of what we call special effect in editing. That’s one of the negative uses of technology. If u observe closely, it was the same mistake being repeated in the same manner repeatedly. As a video editor, I can see some repetition in the clip”. Upon receiving this view from Expert A, I felt relieved that my own layman impression that the video was likely to be fake was becoming confirmed. To finally confirm my impression as correct, I received another expert analysis on the video, equally through whatsapp. The second expert view (Expert B) proffers a professional opinion (which is also logical to any reasonable person of sound understanding) to show that the video is false as follows: “IGP Saga As a filmmaker, who also heads a film Company, with professionals working under me. I examined the video in detail, not only that, I directed my Head of Productions to also examine it and give me his professional view. The following is our considered view on it.

1. There are jump cuts (about 6) of both on the video and audio.
2. When you concentrate on the fence and canopy behind you will notice flip clips
3. The editor of this video clip used “add-and cross dissolve” on both audio and video.
4. The audio was generously repeated, more than 25% repeated. (The editor repeated the audio cut clip, then join it with another audio clip, then join it to a dissolved video clip, and so on).
5. If you enlarge the video greatly, you will see that it is not totally in sync in places, which supports the clip fault lines. It is clearer if played in slow motion. But you may not see it on an ordinary device especially as the video is not very clear enough.
6. In fact if you import this video on Avid (editing software) time line, it will show each clip layer very clearly.
7. Then the Transmission was repeated several times (3 times).
8. There is no superimposition of the image of the IGP to a different background, namely the fence/canopy, which can be done using Green Screen to achieve created geography, that is, you can be filmed on a sound stage in front of the Green Screen, while a different location (e.g. the canopy background) image is projected live as you are been filmed, or in the editing room. This is such that you can be filmed walking on a sound stage in Abuja in front of the Green Screen, and be seen in a video clip on the street of Lagos or New York.
9. Finally, my verdict: the video was professionally done to discredit the IGP, simple.

I’ve gone to this length to warn us to stop posting or reposting stuffs that you cannot verify. I’ve said it before, it can make you look stupid at best when the truth comes out, or get you and probably the platform in trouble. Verify and confirm before posting, please. Based on the above, it is reasonable to conclude, and I so posit, that the viral video of the IGP struggling to deliver his speech in Kano State on Monday, 14^th May 2018 at the commissioning of the Force Intelligence Unit is fake. I have no doubts about this. Expert A also supports the position of Expert B when he further submitted thus: “I’m glad this provides a clearer professional explanation. I knew immediately I saw the clip that it was produced to discredit the IGP. I strongly believe that it was a sponsored production.” This writer is aware of opinions proffered in many other quarters to justify that the video is not doctored. Such opinions are however merely sentimental coming from non-professionals in film production and video editing, unlike the experts relied on in this article who are professionals. Those other opinions are not worthy of consideration on the authenticity of the video. What therefore remains is to clarify the Islamic law position of the making and spread of such false information and its defamatory effects on the personality of a fellow human being. This is analysed in the next segment. III. RELIGIO-LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE MAKING AND SPREAD OF THE VIDEO Islamic law is both a religious and legal code. It is one of the leading legal systems in the world with the widest spread and application, either officially or privately. This cannot be otherwise since wherever there is a Muslim, application of Islamic law occurs; e.g. Islamic law regulates the Muslim in his five daily prayers (aṣ-ṣalāh) like other aspects of his affairs. By its nature, Islamic law has some unique features not found in any other legal system considered equally as a world legal family. Notable of these unique features are its provisions for punishments, rewards and damages beyond the material compensations and in the hereafter. Also, it is the only legal system that has a clear code/statement on the objectives for which it legislates, technically called Maqāṣiḍ as-Sharīʿah (Objectives of Islamic law). These objectives are in three phases technically divided into the essentials (ḍarūriyyāt); the necessities (hājiyyāt); and the embellishments (tahsiniyyāt). The essential interests/values which Islamic law seeks to protect are five, namely; (1) religion (ad-dīn); (2) life (an-nafs); (3) family genealogy (an-nasl); (4) property (al-māl); and (5) intellect (al-ʿaql). The five items are considered as the core values which man needs to live a meaningful life that can guarantee him a place of pride in the paradise in the hereafter. However, the law recognises the fact that these five core values need some other supporting protections for their enjoyment. Thus, the necessities and the embellishments are safeguarded along with them. In this regard, a necessity for the enjoyment of life is for every man to have his dignity secured from defamation, false accusation and the spread of fake news against him. This has therefore been safeguarded through criminalisation of defamation, false accusation and spreading of fake news as a ḥadd offence (Ḥudūd, plural of ḥadd, are offences with expressly specified punishments in the Qur’an or the Sunnah, which are the primary sources of Islamic law) or as a taʿdhir offence (an offence whose punishment is left to the discretion of the judge). Also, even where a person has made a mistake or done a laughable act, Islamic law still warns against making jest of the person for it is possible he may be much more beloved to Allah than those making mockery of him. Accordingly, the religio-legal consequences of the making and the spread of the false video on the doctored speech presentation of the IGP could be viewed with the lens of Islamic law from different angles. It should be analysed from the perspectives of the implications of (1) sharing false information; (2) defamation of a fellow human being (be s/he a Muslim or non-Muslim); (3) Making Mockery of a Fellow Human Being; and (4) Implications for those involved. These would be briefly analysed, one by one. 1. Sharing False Information Islamic law frowns seriously at liars and tale bearers. No where in the Qur’an has Allah rained curses on any other bad person like it was done on liars. In a chapter of the Qur’an alone (Qur’an 77), which consists of just 50 verses, Allah repeatedly rains curses on the liars ten times (Qur’an 77: verses 15; 19; 24; 28; 34; 37; 40; 45; 47; and, 49). For this reason, Islamic law provides clear guides on how to treat and react to any information which did not emanate from one’s knowledge and whose authenticity is not ascertained. There are clear express instructions on this so much that no Muslim would have an excuse to act contrary to the required conduct in this regard. To start with, in Qur’an 49 verse 6, it is decreed as follows: “O you who believe, when a mischief-maker/a disobedient one (fāsiqun) comes to you with any information (naba’in), investigate/authenticate (fatabayyanū) lest you ignorantly harm (offend, defame) (innocent) people and you will eventually become regretful of what you did”. In its commentary on the above verse, Ibn Kathīr (see https://thequranblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/al-hujurat1.pdf) says: “Allah the Exalted ordered investigating the news that sinners and the wicked bring, to make sure of its authenticity. Otherwise, if the sinner’s word is taken for granted and a decision is based on it, regardless of whether the information is true or not, the authorities will be taking the lead of the sinners. Allah the Exalted and Most Honoured forbade taking the path of the corrupted and sinners. This is why groups of the scholars of Hadith refuse to accept narrations from narrators whose reliability is unknown, for they might be from among the wicked people, in reality”. To further demonstrate that spreading false information cannot even be excused on the ground of ignorance or innocent error, Allah warns that every part of the body engaged in spreading the information would be queried in the hereafter. On this, the Qur’an, in Chap 17 verse 36, also warns clearly thus: “And do not pursue that which you have no knowledge of; certainly, the ears, the eyes and the heart shall all be questioned about it”. From the foregoing, it is the duty of everyone to ensure the authenticity of any information, with absolute certainty, before sharing it. The implication of spreading false information in Islamic law, such as the video clip in question, is clear to be very severe. It is a violation of the instructions contained in the Qur’an against engaging in such acts. The worst part of it is that such information may defame a fellow human being. The legal implication of defamation in Islamic law would therefore be relevant to also be considered. 2. Defamation of a Fellow Human Being The offence of defamation generally is called Qadhf. It ordinarily connotes false accusation against a person for adultery (if the person accused is married) or fornication (if single) (zinā). However, in view of the effect of the false accusation for zinā, which essentially damages the dignity and personality of the victim, any form of defamation has also been treated as Qadhf, though not attracting ḥadd like the “real Qadhf”, but attracting taʿdhir (discretionary) punishment, which may however be up to the ḥadd punishment for the real Qadhf. This explains why Caliph ʿAlī analogised the offence of drinking alcohol with Qadhf in coming up with the same punishment on the defamatory likely behavour of the drunkard. Therefore, defamation of a fellow human being through a false video footage like done against the IGP attracts taʿdhir punishment which may be up to ḥadd punishment for the real Qadhf. As a ḥadd offence, the punishment for the real Qadhf is clearly spelt out in Qur’an 21 verse 4; it attracts 80 lashes and perpetual disqualification from admitting the evidence of the offended, except if he repents and becomes of good behaviour (Qur’an 21 verse 5). To be exonerated from the non- ḥadd defamation, the perpetrator must satisfy certain conditions. These conditions, according to Joe Bradford (2017: “To make a fair show in the flesh: Defamation under Islamic law & Dangers of Ambiguity” available at https://www.joebradford.net/to-make-a-fair-show-in-the-flesh-defamation-under-islamic-law-the-dangers-of-ambiguity/) are as follows:

1. The statement was not an express accusation of adultery/fornication.
2. The defendant made a statement about the plaintiff to another, publicly or privately.
3. The statement was injurious to the plaintiff’s reputation.
4. There was an intention to harm or disparage the plaintiff.
5. The statement was false or sufficiently ambiguous enough to imply falsehood.
6. There are no privileges in effect when making such a statement.

A critical look at the circumstances surrounding the video clip would show that those involved have committed non- ḥadd defamation against the person of the IGP. They have also made the IGP to be subjected to mockery so much that some so-called comedians have also released other videos mimicking the scenario painted in the offensive defamatory video. For the Muslims involved, the also need to be reminded of the Islamic law’s position on making mockery of another person. This is briefly examined below. 3. Making a Mockery of Fellow Human Being Even if the video is taken to be true and not doctored, Islamic law still precludes such video that subject the IGP from being shared with another person let also making it go viral. Islamic law is very frank about restraints from mockery. In Qur’an 49: 11, the prohibition is explicitly stated while those who do not repent from such conducts are described as the wrongdoers. Thus, the Islamic decree on mockery states as follows: “O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule [another] people; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women ridicule [other] women; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after [one’s] faith. And whoever does not repent – then it is those who are the wrongdoers”. As a measure against ridiculing another person and committing defamation, Islamic law places a responsibility on any one that receives any damaging information against any person to quickly dismiss it as falsehood (Qur’an 21: verse 12) until and unless its authenticity is ascertained. Thus, all Muslims that received the video, as persons bound by Islamic law, were supposed to immediately dismiss it and hold a good presumption in favour of the IGP. Failure to do this is a violation of their religious law. This therefore brings into fore the implication for everyone involved in making and spreading of the video, especially the Muslims among them. 4. Implications for the “Maker” and the “Spreader” To those who hold the belief that the video is not doctored, the requirement of Islamic law is for them to produce four witnesses to testify to their authenticity claim. Otherwise, if they cannot do that, they remain branded as liars (Qur’an 24: verse 13) and, as liars, the curse of Allah is hanging over them (Qur’an 77: verses 15; 19; 24; 28; 34; 37; 40; 45; 47; and, 49). It is a disheartening situation for Muslims to receive such a video and be saying things they have no certainty about on the video such as its authenticity. Islamic law frowns seriously at such conduct and rather obliges Muslims to refraining from speaking on the video and presume it to be a defamation against the IGP (Qur’an 24: verses 16-17). In a more direct expression of displeasure against spreading falsehood and defamatory news about another person, the Qur’an in Chap 24: verse 19, warns those who derive pleasure from such conduct on the implications for them as follows: “Indeed, those who like that immorality should be spread [or publicized] among those who have believed will have a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And Allah knows, and you do not know”. What is certain is that, whereas those who made or spread the video might consider the act as trivial, it is a serious matter frowned at in Islamic law and that is why Allah has promised them “painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter”. It therefore behoves those who have ignorantly been involved in the making and spreading of the video and in casting an aspersion on the personality of the IGP and ridiculed him to sincerely regret their actions and seek repentance and forgiveness (from Allah and the IGP) for Allah not to inflict His promised painful punishment on them. For such regret and repentance to be truly sincere and as show of their sincere belief in Allah as true Muslims who submit to the laws of Allah and His decrees, Allah warns them not to ever be involved in similar conducts of ridiculing and defaming another person again (Qur’an 24: 17). In Islamic law, there are sins, offences and punishments for anyone involved in any unlawful act at every stage of the act and regardless of the level of involvement. This is both confirmed by the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Specifically, in relation to a defamatory conduct like the one under consideration, the law is very tough in stating clearly that, everyone involved would have a share of the sins and for the maker who bears the bigger sin, a bigger punishment accrues to him (ʿadhābun ʿāẓīm) (Qur’an 24: verse 11). In an Ḥadīth of the Prophet, he was reported to have declared that every person involved in alcoholic transactions at any stage and in any capacity bears a sin. Analogically (by Qiyās), this applies to other situations as well. Thus, every person involved in the promotion of the doctored video against the IGP in any form and howsoever bears a sin. In an ideal Islamic nation, such persons deserve to be subjected to taʿdhir punishments to deter them and others. Another implication that deserves mentioning relates to the fact that Muslims that shared and promoted the video are presumed to be fasting since they are in the month of Ramāḍan. This is a significant month when Muslims are expected to exhibit higher level of good conduct. It is therefore surprising that despite the fasting, the Muslims involved still freely shared and expressed opinions supporting the authenticity of the video as well as casting aspersion on the personality of the IGP. Subḥānā Allah! Where is the Taqwāh expected from those Muslims in this sacred month? It is disheartening that those Muslims did not exercise restraints despite the warnings of the Prophet, as narrated by Abu Hurairah, that Allah has no need of the abstinence from eating or drinking by any person who does not abandon/give up false speech and acting upon it. As a matter of law, Muslims are to avoid any trouble during this month and if anyone provokes them, they should declare to that person that they are fasting (Saḥīḥ Bukhārī, 1894; Saḥīḥ Muslim, 1151). This is to show the extent of good conduct expected from Muslims in this month, which is to be carried over to other months. IV. CONCLUSION Since the release of a video footage purporting to show that the Nigerian Inspector General of Police (IGP) was unable to read his speech in Kano State, different views and comments have been expressed on the video. The video has gone viral with some people believing it to be true and thereby casting aspersions on the personality of the IGP. As a country with both Muslim and non-Muslim citizens, those involved in the sharing of the video and casting aspersions on the personality of IGP, believing the video to be true, include Muslims. In addition to the general law of the country that does not contradict the Islamic tenets, Muslims are bound by Islamic law and all their actions and inactions must always be gauged by the scale of Islamic law. To this end, this article has presented the Islamic law perspective on the viral video in relation to its making, authenticity and viral sharing, especially in view of the involvement of the Muslims. It has been shown in this write up that, based on professional views, the video is not authentic; it was doctored. Thus, it is a defamatory tool against the IGP. Islamic law seriously frowns at tarnishing the image of any person through such false fabrications. The act is both legally and religiously condemnable and therefore attracts legal punishment and spiritual curse. Notwithstanding this, as a legal system whose aim is the good of the people, there is room for sincere regret, repentance and forgiveness for those who have ignorantly been involved. This path is honourable for any sincere Muslim that fears the day he would return to his Lord to be toed. Interestingly, the incident is of spiritual benefits to the IGP as his rank with Allah as a Muslim could be raised by the stigma and the emotional torture the incident might have inflicted on him. He should therefore be consoled; especially when those spreading it are his fellow Nigerians and fellow Muslims. On this, the Qur’an counsels him not to feel bad about it as follows: “Indeed, those who came with falsehood are a group among you. Do not think it is bad for you; rather it is good for you. For every person among them is what [punishment] he has earned from the sin, and he who took upon himself the greater portion thereof – for him is a great punishment” (Qur’an 24: 11). Based on the above, it can be safely concluded that the making and spreading of the false video is condemnable from the Islamic law perspective. Muslims involved in the spread of the false video, as well in castigating the IGP, have earned for themselves the curse of Allah and a painful punishment awaits them in this world and the Hereafter. They however have the option of repentance and seeking forgiveness for their wrong doing. This is honourable for them to do so that they may also rectify the damages they have done to their fasting. Finally, there is a lesson for the government to be drawn from the technique of ḥadīth authentication in curbing the trend of fake news in the modern time. This can be done in regard to news content verification; transmitters’ reliability; and, transmission’s reliability (See Yunus Yossof, et al, “Adopting Hadith Authentication Techniques into Digital Evidence Authentication”, Journal of Computer Science, 6(6), 2010: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7cc4/8d22b88a92a701cee4df1d14c1adee8290ec.pdf). A PhD research on how to use this technique to curb fake news is worthwhile to be sponsored by the government or any of its agencies like the Nigeria Police itself. Dr Abdullahi Ishola teaches law at:Kwara State University Malete (KWASU) And researches on:Islamic law of Endowment (Waqf); Administration of Justice; Comparative Law; Islamic Finance Jurisprudence;Human Rights; and Western Jurisprudence.Email: asishola1@gmail.com]]>