THE Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has condemned the decision of a Kano Magistrate Court ordering two popular TikTok creators, Idris Mai Wushirya and Basira Yar Guda, to get married within 60 days, describing the ruling as unconstitutional and a violation of fundamental human rights.

In a statement signed by its president, Mazi Afam Osigwe (SAN), and posted on its X handle on Tuesday, October 21, the NBA said no court in Nigeria had the constitutional power to compel two individuals to marry, adding that marriage must always remain a voluntary act between consenting adults.

“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,” Osigwe said.

The order was issued on Monday, October 20, 2025, by Magistrate Halima Wali following a case filed by the Kano State Films and Video Censorship Board. The board accused the content creators of producing and sharing ‘indecent’ videos on social media that violated the state’s moral and religious codes.

Wali directed the Kano State Hisbah Board to facilitate the marriage and warned that failure to formalise the union within 60 days would amount to contempt of court. The chairman of the Censorship Board was also mandated to oversee the implementation of the order.

The ruling followed the arraignment of the two influencers after clips showing affectionate scenes between them circulated on TikTok. The Censorship Board maintained that the content breached provisions of Kano State’s censorship laws, which prohibit the production and distribution of sexually suggestive or explicit material.

Mai Wushirya was earlier remanded in a correctional facility after being accused of promoting immoral behaviour, while Yar Guda was interrogated by the board’s enforcement unit before the case was taken to court.

Reacting to the judgement, the NBA president described the order as an example of judicial overreach and a direct violation of personal liberty, dignity, and privacy as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

“Marriage, by its very nature, is a voluntary union between consenting adults. It cannot, under any circumstance, be imposed as a form of punishment, moral correction, or judicial remedy,” Osigwe said, adding that “Any attempt to do so violates the rights to personal liberty, dignity of the human person, and privacy as guaranteed under the Constitution.”

The association warned that such orders undermined public confidence in the judiciary and distorted its constitutional role as a protector of citizens’ rights. “The courts must remain the bastion of justice and protectors of constitutional rights, not instruments for enforcing social conformity or moral compulsion,” Osigwe added.

He called for an immediate review of the court’s decision and urged the relevant judicial authorities to prevent a recurrence of what he termed an unconstitutional act. The NBA directed its Citizens’ Liberties Committee and Women’s Forum to monitor the case to ensure adherence to the rule of law.

The incident has reignited debate about the balance between cultural or religious morality and constitutional rights in northern Nigeria, where Sharia-based moral enforcement occasionally intersects with civil judicial processes.

An earlier ICIR report highlighted similar tensions, explaining how musician Aminu Yahaya Sharif was sentenced to death by an Upper Sharia Court in Kano in 2020 for blasphemy. The appeal division of the Kano State High Court later ordered a retrial and freed 13-year-old Umar Farouq, who had been jailed for a similar offence. The appellate court ruled that the earlier judgment violated provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.

Human rights lawyers and civil society organisations have since warned that such rulings, including the latest order against the TikTokers, reflect a growing pattern of moral regulation that conflicts with Nigeria’s constitutional guarantees.

The NBA reiterated that no individual should be coerced either directly or indirectly into marriage by any arm of government or judicial authority, stressing that the independence of the courts must be exercised within the bounds of the Constitution and the rule of law.