The Death Sentence for Mahmoud Muhammad Taha:
Misuse of the Sudanese Legal System and Islamic Shari’a law?

NIMEIRI’S DEFENCE OF THE SUDANESE LEGAL SYSTEM

Nimeiri cited both religious and political reasons for his convictions and sentences on all five of the accused, ordering the immediate execution of Taha, but reducing the time-scale for repentance (istitabah) and recantation for the other four. Nimeiri repeatedly cited claims about the purported heretical views and beliefs of the five, without however producing or referring to adequate written or verbal evidence as the source of such claims. Added to that, he also cited evidence of the emerging opposition of the Republicans, a group led by Taha, against his own regime. This was part of his desire to label the Republicans as an obvious political organisation and not a ‘think tank’ or an intellectual group. Nimeiri’s speech, following the Court of Appeal’s sentencing, made no explicit mention of apostasy, but he confirmed the sentences provided by the court, based on various sections of the penal code and State Security Act. All his arguments supporting the convictions inclined towards apostasy, more so than any other offences.[lviii] Nimeiri urged the upholding of the conviction ‘on the basis of Shari’a law to protect the nation from the danger of Mahmud [sic] Muhammad Taha and his slander of God and his insolence towards Him (God) and to protect this homeland from heresy’.[lix]

An-Na’im suggests that Mahmoud Muhammad Taha was then executed for an offence that nobody could be legally tried for under the Sudanese law that was in force at that time. Also, apostasy was

an offence of which he was not personally guilty in any case, since he was not an apostate but rather a non-violent Muslim scholar and reformer who happened to hold views on Islamic revival that were at variance with those held by the government of the day. In the absence of any other rational explanation, one is forced to conclude that Ustadh Mahmoud was sacrificed in the cause of maintaining President Nimeiri’s personal drive for Islamization, whatever the real motives behind that drive may have been.[lx]

Thus, Taha was executed in order to psychologically terrorise others who may have felt the same desire to criticise Nimeiri’s policies as a whole – and his personal view of Islamisation, in particular. Before his public execution, it is reported that Taha remained calm and displayed utter dignity, while being surrounded by members of the Ikhwan (Muslim Brothers) and other supporters of Nimeiri, who chanted that Taha’s execution was a victory for Islam. One report states that the Muslim World League, the larger body above the Islamic Council, who introduced the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights in 1981, actually congratulated Nimeiri following the execution.[lxi]

Following Taha’s execution, the ‘heresy’ trials of the co-accused were televised throughout the Sudan in the hope of gaining support for Nimeiri’s regime in its total defence of Islam. This regained the support of those already of the same thinking and mindset. ‘However, the calculation was very wrong in terms of anticipating the reaction of the average Sudanese. Outrage and disgust over the execution and televised heresy trial prevailed, even among Sudanese Muslims who had no personal sympathy for Taha’s theological positions.’[lxii]

As a postscript to the entire trial, the judicial procedure undertaken and the sentences given, some level of ‘justice’ was obtained by the daughter of Mahmoud Taha and one of his co-accused. Following the inevitable overthrow of Nimeiri, just three months later on 6 April 1985, Taha’s daughter and his co-accused later took a constitutional lawsuit to the Supreme Court demanding to have the judgment on Taha and his co-accused made null and void. Their lawsuit petition, dated 25 February 1986, cited a broad level of constitutional and procedural objections that needed to be addressed by the Supreme Court. On 17 April of that year, ‘the Attorney General, acting as counsel for the Government, directly admitted the case for the applicants and stated before the Supreme Court that he had nothing to say in defence of that trial which was totally illegal’.[lxiii]

Finally, in summary:

Taha’s case was seen by many within Sudan and outside as a blatant misuse of the law as he did not reject Islam but merely held views that were not acceptable to those in power. Article 126 of the 1991 penal code now criminalises apostasy and makes it a capital offence should the offender persist in it after a certain period of grace granted by the court. The provision has been condemned by the Special Rapporteur on Sudan as a direct contradiction of international law, as it can be used not only against members of religious minorities who convert – especially those who do so under compulsion – and then change their minds, but also against any Muslims who dissent from the official position on religious matters.[lxiv]

Article 126 of the 1991 penal code is cited in the record of the 1067th meeting of the United Nation’s Human Rights Committee, held on 13 September 1991. Part of Article 126 reads:

(1) There shall be deemed to commit the offence of apostasy every Muslim who propagates for the renunciation of the creed of Islam or publicly declares its renouncement thereof by his statements or conduct;

(2) Whoever commits apostasy shall be given a chance to repent for a period to be determined by the court. Where he insists upon apostasy and he is not a recent convert to Islam, he shall be punished with death;

(3) The penalty provided for apostasy shall be remitted whenever the apostate recants apostasy before execution.[lxv]