Religious Doctrine in the Courtroom? Somaliland Case Raises Questions Over Judicial Independence and the Influence of Hard-Line Religious Thought

 

The three-year imprisonment of Somali writer and social-media commentator Adan Khadar Ali, also known as Adan Sahan, has raised serious questions about the independence of Somaliland's judiciary, the protection of freedom of expression, and the growing influence of conservative religious interpretations in judicial proceedings.

Adan Sahan was arrested after comments he made during a television interview with Galaydh TV in which he discussed women's participation in society, the impact of technology on social relations, and the interpretation of a Qur'anic verse concerning women remaining at home. According to reports, he argued that changing social circumstances should be considered when interpreting and applying religious teachings. On October 6, 2026, a Hargeisa district court sentenced him to three years in prison. The hearing and sentencing took place on the same day, according to people present at the proceedings. What has caused particular concern among lawyers, human-rights defenders and civil-society actors is the alleged religious reasoning used by the court. According to accounts surrounding the case, the judge referred to Nawāqid al-Islām (The Nullifiers of Islam), a well-known theological treatise attributed to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the 18th-century religious reformer whose teachings became closely associated with the Wahhabi/Salafi tradition.

Nawāqid al-Islām is a short theological text dealing with what its author describes as acts or beliefs that can invalidate a person's Islam. It identifies ten such matters, including associating partners with Allah, placing intermediaries between a person and Allah, rejecting or doubting certain fundamental religious positions, mocking aspects of religion, practising sorcery, supporting non-Muslims against Muslims, believing that people can be exempt from the Prophet Muhammad's religious law, and turning away from Islam. The text is therefore not primarily a criminal law code or a modern judicial statute. It belongs to the field of Islamic theology and jurisprudence concerning apostasy and the boundaries of Islamic belief. Some contemporary Islamic scholars strongly defend the text and regard its principles as part of established Islamic doctrine, while the precise application of such theological concepts to individual persons remains a matter of interpretation and jurisprudential qualification.

This distinction is central to the concerns surrounding the Adan Sahan case. A court operating within a constitutional and legal system is expected to identify the statutory basis for a criminal conviction and provide a transparent explanation of how the evidence satisfies the elements of the offence. The question therefore is not whether Nawāqid al-Islām is an Islamic text, but why and in what legal capacity a theological text concerning the boundaries of Islam would be relied upon in determining the criminal liability of a citizen.

The circumstances of the proceedings have intensified those concerns. Reports indicate that the court heard the case and issued the three-year sentence on the same day. Adan's father has publicly alleged that the verdict had effectively been predetermined and that the court did not properly consider material that could have affected the case, including a document recording his son's repentance and the police investigation findings. The Ministry of Religious Affairs and Endowments had reportedly requested that Adan be released, while lawyers including Guuleed Dafac publicly questioned the fairness of the proceedings. The court had not, at the time of reporting, publicly provided comprehensive details explaining the legal basis for the three-year sentence. These allegations require a response from the judiciary. A fair judicial system should not leave the public guessing about whether a conviction was based on legislation, established precedent, religious doctrine, or a combination of these.

The arrest of lawyer Shucayb Adam, who represented Adan, adds another disturbing dimension to the case. According to accounts circulating after the hearing, the lawyer was detained after stating that the verdict appeared to have been written in advance. If independently confirmed, the detention of a defence lawyer immediately after challenging the fairness or independence of judicial proceedings would raise serious concerns about the right to legal representation and the ability of lawyers to defend their clients without intimidation. A lawyer must be able to challenge evidence, question procedure and criticise a judgment through lawful channels. Such advocacy is not an attack on the state; it is an essential component of the administration of justice. The reported detention therefore deserves independent investigation. The relevant authorities should publicly clarify the legal basis for the lawyer's arrest, the charges against him, where he is being held, and whether his detention is connected to statements he made in his professional capacity.

The Adan Sahan case comes against a broader backdrop of concerns over freedom of expression and treatment of journalists and media workers in Somaliland. Human-rights and press-freedom organisations have previously documented arrests and prosecutions of journalists and other public figures in Somaliland. The Journalists Association, for example, reported in September 2026 that journalist Abdiqani Xuseen Abokor had been detained after publishing an interview with poet Ismail Yusuf Abdi, while authorities considered charges including offending the honour or prestige of the president and dissemination of anti-state propaganda. The Somaliland Human Rights Commission has also expressed concern over arrests of journalists and a poet, including cases connected to statements or media content. International human-rights reporting has previously raised concerns about restrictions on freedom of expression and arbitrary arrests in Somaliland. A United Nations communication concerning a 2022 Somaliland case, for example, expressed concern that the prosecution and detention of individuals over their religious beliefs could amount to religious persecution if the allegations were established. None of these cases, by themselves, proves that Somaliland's judiciary has become extremist or Wahhabi. But they demonstrate why the use of a theological text associated with a particular religious tradition in a criminal case should receive serious public scrutiny.

The central concern is the possibility that religious disagreement, controversial interpretation or unconventional social commentary could increasingly be treated as a criminal offence rather than as matters for public debate, religious scholarship and freedom of expression. Somaliland is a predominantly Muslim society, and respect for Islam is rooted in the country's social and cultural life, that reality does not eliminate the need for judicial safeguards. On the contrary, where religion and criminal law intersect, courts have an especially important responsibility to distinguish between legitimate protection of religious harmony and punishment of peaceful expression or theological disagreement. There is also a difference between saying that a particular statement is religiously wrong and determining that the person who made it has committed a criminal offence, there is an even greater distinction between criticism of an interpretation and declaring that an individual has left Islam.

Nawāqid al-Islām deals with precisely this theological boundary. Its use in a criminal proceeding therefore raises a fundamental question: Is the court applying Somaliland's written criminal law, or is it transforming a theological doctrine into a basis for criminal punishment? That question should be answered transparently. The concern about Wahhabi influence should also be handled carefully. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab is historically associated with the religious reform movement from which modern Wahhabi currents developed. The mere citation of one of his works does not establish that a judge, court or institution is Wahhabi, nor does it establish a connection to violent extremism or terrorism.

However, the concern becomes more serious if theological concepts associated with takfir, apostasy or religious exclusion are systematically introduced into criminal proceedings against citizens for expressing controversial opinions; there is a crucial distinction between conservative religious belief, Salafi or Wahhabi religious thought, and violent extremism or terrorism. They should not be treated as synonymous without evidence, the concern is instead whether theological doctrines are being used by state institutions in a manner that undermines legal due process, freedom of expression and judicial neutrality. The Adan Sahan case should therefore not be viewed only as a dispute between one citizen and the court, it raises wider questions about the direction of Somaliland's justice system.

 The judiciary should publicly clarify:

Why was Nawāqid al-Islām cited in the judgment?, Was the text used as religious background, legal authority, or evidence of criminal liability? Was Adan given adequate time and opportunity to defend himself? Was his reported repentance considered? Why was the case heard and sentenced on the same day? What is the legal basis for the arrest of his lawyer, Shucayb Adam? Can defence lawyers freely challenge judicial decisions without fear of arrest or retaliation?

These are not questions against Islam, they are questions about the rule of law,  A judiciary earns public confidence when citizens can understand the legal basis for a conviction, defendants receive a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves, lawyers can represent clients without intimidation, and judges apply publicly accessible law rather than undisclosed or uncertain standards.

The Adan Sahan case therefore deserves independent review and transparent public explanation. If the allegations concerning the use of Nawāqid al-Islām, the predetermined nature of the verdict and the arrest of the defence lawyer are confirmed, they would raise serious concerns about the boundary between religious doctrine and criminal justice in Somaliland. The issue ultimately is not whether Somaliland should protect its Islamic identity, It is whether religious identity can be protected while maintaining an independent judiciary, due process, freedom of expression and the right of every citizen to a fair trial.