A Theoretical Framework for the Reconciliation of Islamic Criminal Law and Constitutional Human Rights in Nigerian Federal System

The co-existence of Sharia criminal law in twelve northern Nigerian states with the constitutional human rights provisions of the 1999 federal constitution creates a foundational jurisprudential tension that existing scholarship has addressed piecemeal but not resolved through a comprehensive theoretical framework. This study develops an original theoretical framework for the principled reconciliation of Islamic criminal law and constitutional human rights within Nigeria's federal system. The framework builds on three theoretical traditions: constitutional pluralism theory, Islamic legal philosophy of Maqasid al-Shariah, and critical comparative constitutional law. Through systematic doctrinal analysis of the constitutional provisions, Sharia Penal Codes of six northern states, and the jurisprudence of the Nigerian Supreme Court and Court of Appeal on Sharia jurisdiction from 1999 to 2023, the study maps the structural points of tension and identifies existing judicial resolution strategies. The framework proposes an original doctrine of Constitutional Islamic Compatibility Assessment, providing a four-stage methodology for evaluating whether any given Sharia criminal provision satisfies both Islamic jurisprudential validity and federal constitutional minimum rights standards. The methodology draws on the Maqasid principle of La Darar, the Islamic doctrine of Shura, and the proportionality principle from comparative constitutional law. Available theoretical legal pluralism literature from Nigeria identifies the absence of a principled reconciliation methodology as the primary gap preventing stable coexistence. Findings are expected to generate a replicable theoretical tool applicable to analogous federal-Islamic law tensions globally. Keywords: Islamic criminal law, constitutional rights, Nigeria, theoretical framework, legal pluralism.