Nigerian Supreme Court Further Delays Justice for Young Musician Facing Death Sentence for “Blasphemy”

  • Supreme Court postpones hearing in case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, a young Sufi musician who has languished in prison for over six years under blasphemy charges.
  • ADF International calls for Sharif-Aminu’s release and the overturning of blasphemy laws, urges the Court and international bodies to act without further delay.

ABUJA (25 JUNE 2026) – A long-awaited hearing in the case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, set months ago for today, 25 June, was abruptly cancelled by the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Sharif-Aminu is a young Nigerian Sufi musician who faces the death penalty because of blasphemy charges related to song lyrics he composed and shared over social media. His case is now stalled again in the Court with no new date scheduled. The hearing was expected to have set the date for oral arguments in the case, which is challenging the constitutionality of northern Nigeria’s death penalty blasphemy laws.

This week’s delay is the latest in a long series of procedural obstacles that have kept Sharif-Aminu behind bars for over six years without resolution. The cancellation is particularly troubling, as Sharif-Aminu’s case had finally begun to move at the Supreme Court, following the first hearing in the case in September 2025. All briefing from the parties was then revised and re-submitted by November 2025 following the September 2025 hearing.

ADF International is calling on the Supreme Court of Nigeria to schedule a new hearing date without further delay, and is urging international bodies to continue pressing Nigerian authorities to uphold their constitutional and international religious freedom obligations.

“Every delay in Yahaya’s case is another day he must spend behind bars, for nothing more than peacefully expressing his faith in song lyrics. Every delay is another day that one of the most dangerous blasphemy laws in the world sits on the books and is being enforced. Yahaya has sat in a prison cell for over six years. How much longer must he wait? The Court should not stall any longer in hearing his case and upholding his right to religious freedom."

- Sean Nelson, Senior Counsel for Global Religious Freedom at ADF International.

“Every delay in Yahaya’s case is another day he must spend behind bars, for nothing more than peacefully expressing his faith in song lyrics. Every delay is another day that one of the most dangerous blasphemy laws in the world sits on the books and is being enforced. Yahaya has sat in a prison cell for over six years. How much longer must he wait? The Court should not stall any longer in hearing his case and upholding his right to religious freedom,” said Sean Nelson, Senior Counsel for Global Religious Freedom at ADF International.

ADF International has provided legal support to Sharif-Aminu’s case since 2022, and continues to advocate for his release and against northern Nigeria’s draconian blasphemy laws, which have perpetuated violence and persecution against minority Muslims like Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, as well as Christians and other religious minorities.

“For years, international bodies and advocates for religious freedom have repeatedly called for the overturning of Nigeria’s death penalty blasphemy laws and for Yahaya’s release. We urgently repeat those calls again now, reaffirming that no one should languish in prison or face a death sentence for their faith. If Nigeria wishes to be viewed in the eyes of the world as a country that truly protects religious freedom and freedom of expression, it must abolish these blasphemy laws,” Nelson added.

Background

 

In March 2020, Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, a young Sufi Muslim musician from Kano State, northern Nigeria, shared self-composed song lyrics on WhatsApp that some considered blasphemous. Local authorities arrested him, and a violent mob burned down his family’s home. He was convicted of blasphemy by a Sharia court without proper legal representation, and on 10 August 2020, he was sentenced to death by hanging.

In January 2021, the Kano State High Court overturned his conviction, citing serious procedural flaws including the absence of legal counsel at his original trial. However, the court ordered a retrial under the same death penalty blasphemy law. After a Court of Appeal upheld the retrial order in 2022, Sharif-Aminu appealed to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. He has remained in prison throughout — without bail — for over six years.

The now-cancelled 25 June 2026 hearing was scheduled in February 2026, following the submission of the parties’ revised briefs. The hearing was cancelled only a few days prior to 25 June, with the explanation being that an alleged new directive required the Court to hear earlier-filed cases first. However, Sharif-Aminu’s case was already proceeding with revised briefing completed, capital punishment cases are meant to be given priority, and no expected timeline or schedule was given.

Blasphemy Laws in Nigeria

 

Nigeria’s blasphemy laws, particularly enforced in the country’s northern region, inflict severe punishments, including the death penalty. International human rights groups and official bodies have repeatedly called for their repeal. Yahaya’s case before the Supreme Court highlights the urgent need for reform to protect freedom of religion and belief.  

Sharif-Aminu’s Supreme Court appeal has the potential to overturn Northern Nigeria’s draconian Sharia-based blasphemy laws, thus enabling Christian converts, minority Muslims, and others, a greater chance to freely speak about their faith and be protected from the often-life-threatening violence that accompanies a blasphemy accusation. 

Nigeria is one of only seven countries in the world with a death penalty blasphemy law, and a positive precedent could help protect religious minorities across the country and beyond. 

Directly following the first hearing at the Supreme Court in September 2025, counsel for the Kano State government made the state’s intentions explicit: “This applicant made blasphemous statements against the Holy Prophet, which the government of Kano State will not condone. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s decision, we will execute him publicly.”  This chilling statement underscores the extreme severity of northern Nigeria’s blasphemy laws, which continue to threaten the lives of religious minorities and silence free expression.  

“Blasphemy laws have continued to target and bring harm to minority Muslims like Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, as well as Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria. It is extremely disappointing that Yahaya’s case, which holds potential to establish new protections for religious freedom, has been delayed yet again,” said Kola Alapinni, Nigerian international human rights lawyer and lead counsel for Yahaya Sharif-Aminu.  “Now, we will continue to advocate for the overturning of the death penalty blasphemy law, for justice for Yahaya and for his release, and for the Court to promptly reschedule the hearing. Yahaya Sharif-Aminu has waited for justice long enough.” 

Sharif-Aminu’s case has drawn significant international attention. The European Parliament has adopted urgency resolutions calling for his immediate and unconditional release on two separate occasions — a rare occurrence that underscores the gravity of the situation. In December 2024, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued an opinion finding that Nigerian authorities had violated multiple internationally protected human rights in Sharif-Aminu’s case, and called for his immediate release and reparations. In April 2025, the West African ECOWAS Treaty Court relied upon Yahaya Sharif-Aminu’s case in holding that Nigeria’s blasphemy laws should be repealed. Most recently, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Nazila Ghanea, highlighted Kano State’s blasphemy law as a “departure[] from fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution,” in a statement following her June 2026 country visit to Nigeria. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Landmark Declaration Calls for International Moratorium on Surrogacy

  • Joint political declaration calls for an international moratorium on surrogacy
  • ADF International moderates launch event at the UN and welcomes sustained momentum towards the global abolition of the practice

GENEVA (22 JUNE 2026) – A group of states has today launched a political declaration calling for an international moratorium on surrogacy, as part of broader efforts to promote the abolition of the practice in line with international human rights law.

Spearheaded by the governments of Italy and Chile, the declaration sets out a shared commitment to achieving the global abolition of surrogacy, promoting an international moratorium on the practice as a stepping stone towards an international legally binding instrument.

The declaration highlights the severe human rights violations and abuses inherent in surrogacy, noting especially the commodification of human life and women’s reproductive capabilities, as well as the harm to the rights of children caused by their deliberate separation from the women who carried and gave birth to them.

The signatories of the declaration warn that women and girls involved in surrogacy arrangements face wide-ranging harms, including serious medical risks, coercion, exploitation and loss of agency – risks that fall disproportionately on vulnerable women and children with limited access to effective remedies.

They also raise urgent concerns about the impact of surrogacy on the early development and long-term health and wellbeing of children born through the practice. The declaration points to potential psychological, emotional, and identity-related impacts as well as complex legal challenges relating to parentage, nationality, and legal protection, and risks of abandonment, trafficking, and exploitation.

The document was presented at a high-level event held on the sidelines of the 62nd session of the UN Human Rights Council, co-hosted by the governments of Italy, Chile, Cameroon and the Holy See and moderated by ADF International.

The declaration was launched shortly before the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, presented a new report on violence against mothers to the Human Rights Council, which identifies surrogate mothers as being at particular risk of violence.

Speaking at the event, Eugenia Roccella, Italian Minister for Family, Natality and Equal Opportunities, said:

“Surrogacy is no longer a matter confined to domestic legislation or individual choices. It has become a global phenomenon, increasingly shaped by international markets, cross-border arrangements, and profound inequalities within and between societies. As policy-makers, we have a responsibility to ask a fundamental question: do we still recognize every human being as a person to be respected, or are we willing to accept situations in which human beings can become a means to satisfy the interests and desires of others?”

“The growing globalisation of surrogacy arrangements, particularly commercial and cross-border practices, has generated complex legal, ethical, and human rights questions,” said Felipe Kipreos Palau, Director of Human Rights of the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

“Divergent national frameworks create regulatory gaps that may encourage the transfer of risks and harmful consequences across jurisdictions…These challenges call for an enhanced international cooperation, and for conversation grounded in the best interests of the child and the dignity of every person involved.”

Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, also expressed her support for the move:

“The states that are joining the declaration today recognise that surrogacy raises… fundamental concerns relating to human dignity [and] the commodification of women and children. They recognise that these concerns are not only limited to commercial arrangements, but that fragmented national approaches will facilitate the growth of a global cross-border market that transfers harm onto women and children in more vulnerable jurisdictions…This declaration shows that policy action is possible”.

“International law already supports the position that surrogacy is incompatible with human dignity and the rights of both women and children – yet its rapid expansion and cross-border loopholes demand a coordinated global response,” said Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International.

“Today’s declaration marks an important step forward in building the international consensus needed to confront the grave human rights violations and abuses inherent in the practice. We welcome the leadership of the sponsoring states and call on governments around the world to join this movement to protect women and children from an industry that profits from their vulnerability.”

Milestone for surrogacy abolition advocacy 

The declaration is the latest milestone in the growing international movement towards the abolition of surrogacy, reaffirming the recommendations of a landmark UN report presented in October 2025.

In the report, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girlsconcluded that surrogacy is “characterized by exploitation and violence against women and children, including girls”, calling on the international community to work towards eradicating the practice through the adoption of an international legally binding instrument.

ADF International has been an early voice in calling attention to the human rights implications of surrogacy at the UN. In addition to providing expert testimony and speaking at multiple high-level events alongside government and UN officials, the organization was also among the driving forces behind a civil society letter endorsed by a diverse coalition of over 220 NGOs from 40 countries, calling for a coordinated international response to surrogacy.

In 2024, Italy became the first country to prohibit surrogacy both within and outside its borders, while in September 2025 Slovakia adopted a constitutional amendment prohibiting the practice. Most recently, in January 2026, the Family, Childhood and Adolescent Commission of the National Congress of Chile advanced landmark legislation that would prohibit surrogacy.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only, with credit to ADF International.

Brazilian judge sentences parents to prison for homeschooling their daughters

  • Parents who chose to homeschool their two daughters convicted of “intellectual neglect” and sentenced to 50 days in prison in first criminal prosecution of home educators in the country. 
  • Conviction is part of a broader pattern of parental rights concerns in Brazil; ADF International is providing legal support to parents’ appeal.  

BRAZIL (JUNE 16) — Brazilian parents Audato and Ieda Denardi have been sentenced to 50 days in prison for homeschooling their daughters. The parents were convicted of “intellectual neglect”, with the judge stating that the home education curricula failed to include programs on “gender and sex education” and “tolerance and diversity.”  

The court also concluded that because the girls, aged 15 and 11, did not like “trap” or “sertanejo” (folk) music, their home curriculum had also failed to properly educate them in cultural diversity, despite the fact that they are both accomplished pianists and speak multiple languages. 

The Denardis were initially sentenced by a lower court in São Paulo in April 2026. Now, they are appealing the ruling, challenging the state’s attempt to imprison them for exercising their right to direct their children’s education. Their sentence will be suspended pending the appeal, which will be heard by the 7 Cãmara Criminal do Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo, the highest state court. ADF International is providing legal support for the appeal. 

“As a mother, I cannot conceive a more dictatorial state than the one that wants me in jail because I chose to exercise my right to direct the education and upbringing of my daughters. My husband and I are hopeful the court will recognize our right to choose the best education for our children and overturn this unjust conviction."

- Ieda Denardi

“As a mother, I cannot conceive a more dictatorial state than the one that wants me in jail because I chose to exercise my right to direct the education and upbringing of my daughters.” said Ieda Denardi. “My husband and I are hopeful the court will recognize our right to choose the best education for our children and overturn this unjust conviction.” 

The conviction came despite the prosecutor recommending that the court acquit the parents. After hearing the witnesses and evaluating the social and academic development of the girls, the prosecutor concluded that the parents had not neglected their children.  

In his decision, the judge explicitly accused the parents of “using their daughters as pawns in an ideological struggle, subjecting them to a form of unregulated education, the effectiveness and quality of which lack adequate metrics within the Brazilian legal system, while completely excluding the State’s involvement.” 

The Denardis’ case has drawn congressional attention, with lawmakers recently holding hearings at which the parents urged Congress to act in favor of homeschooling. A homeschooling bill was approved in the House of Representatives in 2022, but has since stalled in the Senate, creating legal uncertainty for parents who seek to homeschool their children. 

“The prosecutor examined the witnesses and recommended for acquittal. An independent educational psychologist found no sign of neglect. The girls themselves described rigorous daily education. The judge convicted anyway – because a fifteen-year-old said she finds some music lyrics morally questionable, and because the curriculum didn’t include state-approved content on gender. A parent has been sentenced to prison not for failing to educate her children, but for educating them according to her own values. This is a grotesque abuse of the criminal law, and we will not let it stand.” said Julio Pohl, Legal Counsel for Latin America at ADF International. 

Background

Despite over 70,000 children currently being homeschooled in Brazil, the lack of a clear legal framework has left many parents with additional obstacles when choosing home education.  

In 2019, the Brazilian Supreme Court ruled that homeschooling did not contravene the Constitution, but required a federal law to regulate it. Homeschooling parents have relied on international law to defend their right to direct the education of their children. The lack of a federal law on the issue has left them in legal limbo and under constant threat of sanction. One such parent who has faced pushback in the courts is Regiane Cichelero, a Brazilian mother who was denied the right to homeschool her son by a state court last year. ADF International is supporting her appeal. 

However, until now, it has been treated as an administrative offense for failing to register the children in school. The Denardis are the first parents to be criminally convicted for homeschooling their children.  

The Denardi parents began homeschooling their daughters in 2020, after observing the shortcomings of the public education system during pandemic-era remote learning.  Since they started homeschooling, they have seen significant improvement in their daughters’ academic performance and have also enjoyed being able to incorporate their faith and personal values into their learning. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Christian Women and Girls Face Heightened Risk of Violence in Nigeria, UN Experts Warn

  • Experts highlighted patterns of religiously-motivated violence disproportionately targeting Christians and particularly women and girls, as well as other minorities
  • ADF International advocates for the Nigerian government to fulfil its obligations to guarantee freedom of religion and prevent all forms of violence

GENEVA (8 JUNE 2026) – UN experts have issued a formal communication to the Nigerian government, expressing grave concerns over alarming reports of human rights violations by armed military and political groups in northern and central Nigeria, disproportionately affecting Christians and particularly women and girls, among other religious or belief communities.

The joint letter, issued by the Special Rapporteurs on violence against women and girls, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, minority issues, and torture, and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, comes in response to mounting credible reports and extensive advocacy efforts by human rights and religious freedom groups, including ADF International. The full text of the communication will be made publicly available at the end of the 60-day response window granted to the Nigerian government.

The communication comes as armed militant groups continue to terrorise local populations in northern Nigeria and the Middle Belt through targeted violence, abductions, and forced marriages and conversions. Despite growing international scrutiny and well-documented allegations of grave human rights violations, Nigerian authorities have thus far failed to adequately protect civilians and bring perpetrators to justice.

UN experts cited the “broader pattern of violence and persecution disproportionately affecting Christian communities in some northern states,” noting the elevated risk of religiously-motivated attacks by radical Islamist militias and an increased threat of sexual violence against women and girls.

The experts highlighted that the risk for Christian females is especially great, pointing to specific cases where women and girls had been abducted, subjected to sexual violence, forced conversion and child marriage, or were attacked for rejecting a forced marriage arrangement. They further observed that Christian women and girls are especially vulnerable within camps for internally displaced persons.

The Special Procedures mandate-holders underscored Nigeria’s failure to uphold its international human rights obligations regarding freedom of religion, safety, liberty, and the rights of women and children, among others. They also noted the enforcement of blasphemy codes and local interpretations of Sharia law in certain constituent states as contributing factors in violence against non-Muslims.

The experts emphasised the need for Nigerian authorities to urgently investigate and act on alleged violations and protect victims and those still at risk.

“Christians, particularly women and girls, among other religious minorities, have faced grave and systematic atrocities at the hands of armed militant groups operating with impunity in parts of Nigeria. For too long, the international community has remained largely silent as this crisis has deepened. The joint communication from five UN mechanisms is a significant and welcome step towards ensuring that these violations receive international attention, and that their root causes –including discriminatory legal frameworks – are fully addressed,” said Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International.

“ADF International is committed to protecting freedom of religion and expression in Nigeria, and has supported both Christians and people of other beliefs facing discrimination and other human rights violations and abuses. As we welcome the UN experts’ efforts to hold Nigerian authorities accountable in this regard, we encourage Nigerian authorities to urgently pursue security and legal reforms, and stand ready to support efforts at all levels to uphold religious freedom for all across the country.

“Widespread attacks and brutality have devastated communities across northern and central Nigeria, resulting in serious civil unrest, the mass displacement of populations from their land, and – according to recent reports – more Christians killed for their faith than anywhere else in the world in 2025 alone. We call on the Nigerian government to seize this moment and redouble its efforts to halt the ongoing violence, ensure accountability, and fully guarantee fundamental freedoms as enshrined in both the Constitution and international human rights law.”

ADF International Advocacy in Nigeria

ADF International advocates for Christians and other religious minorities who face severe persecution across Nigeria. We have supported multiple individuals who have been attacked for their faith or targeted under blasphemy laws.

ADF International supported the legal defence of Rhoda Jatau, a Christian mother imprisoned for 19 months for allegedly sharing a blasphemous video that condemned the lynching of Christian college student Deborah Emmanuel Yakubu. Jatau was fully acquitted in December 2024.

Recently, a Nigerian High Court struck down the wrongful conviction of David* (name changed for security reasons), a Christian man who faced torture for helping a persecuted convert escape violence in the country. ADF International supported David’s legal defence.

ADF International is also supporting the legal defence of Sufi musician Yahaya Sharif-Aminu before the Supreme Court of Nigeria; he was imprisoned for over five years and previously sentenced to death for a WhatsApp message deemed blasphemous. Sharif-Aminu is currently awaiting a hearing date before the court after his first hearing was held in September. Following the hearing, a Nigerian state lawyer threatened to publicly execute the young man for sending a song on WhatsApp. His case carries with it the possibility of abolishing the draconian blasphemy laws that significantly exacerbate Nigeria’s climate of violence and hostility toward religious minorities, including Christians.

ADF International was also among several human rights organisations and experts that urged the US State Department to redesignate Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC). This status was accorded in October 2025, drawing greater international attention to the human rights consequences of the country’s security situation.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen submits testimony before Canadian Senate Human Rights Committee on C-9 “Hate Speech” Bill

Päivi reads her bible in the Finnish Parliament building.
  • Päivi Räsänen shares her experience of prosecution and conviction by Finnish authorities for peacefully expressing Christian beliefs about marriage and human sexuality
  • Räsänen submitted testimony as Canadian Senate considers amending criminal code to weaken protections for opinions expressed on religious subjects
Päivi reads her bible in the Finnish Parliament building.

OTTAWA (2 JUNE 2026) – Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, who was criminally convicted for a decades-old church booklet about marriage and sexual ethics, was invited to submit a testimony before the Canadian Senate Human Rights Committee on the C-9 bill concerning “hate speech”.

In her testimony, submitted for the hearing on 1 June, Räsänen discussed her experience of facing a seven-year prosecution and three criminal trials for sharing her Christian beliefs about marriage on social media and in a booklet written for her church. Citing her narrow conviction by the Finnish Supreme Court, Räsänen warned the Committee of the dangers of removing protections for religious speech in the public square.

The former Interior Minister’s testimony comes as Canada’s House of Commons considers Bill C-9, which proposes to weaken protections for speech on religious matters in the Canadian criminal code.

The bill, among other things, removes a provision that protects religious statements made in “good faith”, potentially criminalising religious speech that would otherwise be lawful.

If passed, the bill would enable the prosecution of religious speech if the courts consider that it “wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group”. It carries a punishment of up to two years’ imprisonment.

“My experience in Finland has shown me that laws which criminalize speech have a very real cost not only to individuals, but also society at large. They encourage law-abiding citizens to censor their speech, and deprive wider society of conversations of critical importance."

- Päivi Räsänen

In her testimony, Räsänen emphasised the dangers that “hate speech” laws pose for fundamental freedoms and democratic societies:

“Censorship is one of the greatest existential threats to today’s democracies in Europe. You do not need to agree with my beliefs to see the danger of criminalizing peaceful speech. When the state controls which ideas and beliefs may be expressed, democracy becomes fragile. My case reveals where this path can lead.

“My experience in Finland has shown me that laws which criminalize speech have a very real cost not only to individuals, but also society at large. They encourage law-abiding citizens to censor their speech, and deprive wider society of conversations of critical importance.

Räsänen further warned against ambiguous “hate speech” legislation that criminalises the peaceful expression of certain beliefs. She recalled the Finnish Supreme Court’s decision to uphold her conviction despite acknowledging that her booklet “did not contain incitement to violence or comparable threat-like fomenting of hatred”.

She added that censorial legislation has negative consequences both for those prosecuted and others who will no longer feel able to express their views:

“Even when courts ultimately acquit, our story shows how the process itself becomes the punishment. We have faced years of investigation, public scrutiny, and legal uncertainty. This creates a chilling effect, not just for Christians, but for everyone who holds views outside a narrow, state-approved consensus… Through fear, “hate speech” laws undermine public discourse and drive diverse views from the public square.”

Räsänen concluded: “I look forward to the day when the fundamental right to free speech is upheld for all who seek to peacefully express their convictions.”

Background

In March 2026, Räsänen was found guilty of “insult” by the Finnish Supreme Court for expressing her Christian beliefs about human sexuality in a 2004 booklet produced for her church. Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola and the Luther Foundation Finland were convicted alongside her for publishing the booklet.

The long-serving Finnish parliamentarian’s nearly seven-year criminal prosecution began after she shared her Christian beliefs about marriage and sexual ethics in a 2019 tweet, leading to a police investigation that resulted in further charges for expressing her beliefs in a 2019 live radio debate and authoring the 2004 church booklet.

Formally charged with “agitation against a minority group” in 2021, Räsänen was acquitted on all charges by two lower courts in 2022 and 2023. Nevertheless, the state prosecutor appealed the decision concerning the Bible verse tweet and church booklet. In a narrow 3-2 ruling, the Finnish Supreme Court upheld the acquittal for the tweet but convicted Räsänen, the Bishop and the Luther Foundation Finland for the booklet.

In May, Räsänen announced her intention to appeal her case to the European Court of Human Rights, alongside Bishop Pohjola and the Luther Foundation Finland.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Crown Office backs down following free speech victory of Scottish Christian grandmother cleared in court for offering consensual conversation in ‘buffer zone’

  • Rose Docherty, 75, was cleared in court on 27 April, following arrest for offering consensual conversation
  • Scottish prosecutor had one week to appeal ruling, which expired earlier this month
  • With ADF International’s support, Mrs Docherty is now considering all options to prevent the recurrence of her arrest and treatment, including legal action against the police

GLASGOW (22 May 2026) – The Crown Office has backed down and refused to appeal the case of a Glaswegian Catholic grandmother, who was cleared in court after offering to speak with people in a “buffer zone”.

Rose Docherty, 75, was cleared at Glasgow Sheriff Court on 27 April, when the judge dismissed two criminal charges of “influencing” against her, in the first ever victory under censorial national legislation introducing abortion facility “buffer zones” in the UK.

In a development that reinforces last month’s free speech victory, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Scotland’s public prosecutor, has refused to appeal the ruling and is now timed out of doing so.

They had one week to appeal the ruling, which expired on Tuesday 5 May. ADF International coordinated Mrs Docherty’s legal defence.

The 75-year-old Christian grandmother was arrested last September merely for offering to speak with people in the vicinity of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow and holding a sign that read: “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want”, leading to outcry across the world, including from the US State Department.

She did not approach anyone, did not speak about abortion, did not engage in any behaviour that was obstructing, harassing or intimidating and was not protesting.

Following her arrest, Mrs Docherty was held in custody for several hours. She was refused a chair to sit on in her cell, despite making it known that she had had a double hip replacement.

With ADF International’s support, Mrs Docherty is now considering all options to prevent the recurrence of her arrest and treatment, including legal action against the police

Last September was the second time Mrs Docherty had been arrested for peacefully offering consensual conversation in a “buffer zone”. Her first arrest for peaceful expression was on 19 February 2025, and the Procurator Fiscal later backed down and decided not to proceed with a prosecution in August, in a free speech win.

“Peaceful expression, which is protected by national and international law, can never be a crime."

- Rose Docherty

Mrs Docherty was the first person to be criminally charged under Scotland’s 2024 “buffer zone” law, which forbids the “influencing” of anyone seeking to access, provide or facilitate abortion and is enforced within 200 metres of every hospital where abortions occur. There are similar “buffer zone” laws in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

On 27 April, Sheriff Stuart Reid dismissed two charges of “influencing” against Mrs Docherty, ruling that the charges violated her Article 10 ECHR right to freedom of expression.

Sheriff Reid found that the charges were not “prescribed by law”, since they failed to state or identify another person in the “buffer zone” that was present for the purpose of accessing, providing or facilitating abortion, and who was criminally “influenced” by Mrs Docherty’s actions, as is required by the law.

The judge concluded that the Procurator Fiscal had “failed to disclose an offence known to the law of Scotland” and dismissed the case pro loco et tempore, meaning the matter can be brought back if prosecutors bring improved evidence and decide that a prosecution continues to be in the public interest.

Rose Docherty said:

“I am very pleased with this development, which reinforces that offering consensual conversation is not a crime on any public street in Scotland—regardless of whether or not that street is in a ‘buffer zone’. Today, there is sadly an epidemic of loneliness and people experience coercion every day. An offer to speak, which can be freely accepted or refused by any person, could really help someone and should never be criminalised.

“Peaceful expression, which is protected by national and international law, can never be a crime. The authorities should learn from their failed attempts to censor me—a 75-year-old Christian grandmother, who has always lived in Glasgow—and refrain in the future from criminalising me or any person who lawfully expresses their rights in this country.

“I repeat my call for ‘buffer zone’ laws to be repealed in Scotland and across the UK, to prevent them being used to censor peaceful expression like mine.

“I am now consulting with my legal team and considering what actions are necessary, including legal action, to ensure the authorities are not able to repeatedly arrest, imprison and prosecute me for peacefully exercising my right to free speech.“

Barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International, Jeremiah Igunnubole commented:

“Rose’s free speech win last month has now been solidified by the Crown Office’s decision not to appeal. This is a victory for freedom of expression in Scotland and across the UK.

“Regardless of whether people agree with Rose’s pro-life and Christian views, all should be able to agree that offering to speak with people in a public space is not a crime and must never be treated as one.

“However, ‘buffer zone’ legislation across the UK continues to dangerously undermine the rule of law. It is inconsistent that Rose has been vindicated in Scotland, while our clients Livia Tossici-Bolt and Adam Smith-Connor have been criminally convicted for peaceful expression in ‘buffer zones’ elsewhere in the UK.

“The only way to robustly protect fundamental rights, uphold the rule of law in the UK, and ensure that ‘buffer zones’ are not used as a tool to censor lawful conduct is to repeal the deeply flawed, anti-free speech laws that impose thought-crime restrictions in Scotland and across the UK.

“We have already seen the US State Department strongly criticise the UK’s ‘buffer zone’ censorship and express deep concern over the cases of Rose and our other clients. If politicians do not act to protect free speech, the alarming reality is that Great Britain will cease to be a place where human rights are respected as they once were, and our reputation on the world stage will suffer as a result.

“Although Rose has been vindicated, she should never have been arrested. The process has become the punishment, with a deeply concerning chilling effect on free speech more broadly.

“We are now supporting Rose in considering all her options, including legal action, to ensure such treatment is not repeated or normalised. Standing in a public space offering a consensual conversation is not, as Sheriff Reid put it, “an offence not known to the law of Scotland”. We will continue to stand with Rose to keep the peaceful exercise of free speech rights out of the criminal courts.”

Background

Mrs Docherty’s censorial arrest sparked expressions of concern in the UK and around the world, including from the US State Department, which described it as “another egregious example of the tyrannical suppression of free speech happening across Europe”, and from the Scottish Catholic Bishops’ Conference.

The architect of Scotland’s 2024 “buffer zone” law, Gillian Mackay MSP, admitted on BBC Scotland that the vague prohibitions in the legislation could criminalise someone for praying visibly from a window in their home within the zone, “depending on who’s passing by the window”. 

US Vice President JD Vance highlighted this law as a particular matter for concern in his Munich Security Conference speech in February last year.

Read more about the case here.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

(First and second pictures: Rose Docherty and Legal Counsel for ADF International Jeremiah Igunnubole outside Glasgow Sheriff Court, following the ruling clearing Rose on 27 April; Rose Docherty outside the court)

Crown Office backs down following free speech victory of Scottish Christian grandmother cleared in court for offering consensual conversation in ‘buffer zone’

  • Rose Docherty, 75, was cleared in court on 27 April, following arrest for offering consensual conversation
  • Scottish prosecutor had one week to appeal ruling, which expired earlier this month
  • With ADF International’s support, Mrs Docherty is now considering all options to prevent the recurrence of her arrest and treatment, including legal action against the police

GLASGOW (22 May 2026) – The Crown Office has backed down and refused to appeal the case of a Glaswegian Catholic grandmother, who was cleared in court after offering to speak with people in a “buffer zone”.

Rose Docherty, 75, was cleared at Glasgow Sheriff Court on 27 April, when the judge dismissed two criminal charges of “influencing” against her, in the first ever victory under censorial national legislation introducing abortion facility “buffer zones” in the UK.

In a development that reinforces last month’s free speech victory, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Scotland’s public prosecutor, has refused to appeal the ruling and is now timed out of doing so.

They had one week to appeal the ruling, which expired on Tuesday 5 May. ADF International coordinated Mrs Docherty’s legal defence.

The 75-year-old Christian grandmother was arrested last September merely for offering to speak with people in the vicinity of the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow and holding a sign that read: “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want”, leading to outcry across the world, including from the US State Department.

She did not approach anyone, did not speak about abortion, did not engage in any behaviour that was obstructing, harassing or intimidating and was not protesting.

Following her arrest, Mrs Docherty was held in custody for several hours. She was refused a chair to sit on in her cell, despite making it known that she had had a double hip replacement.

With ADF International’s support, Mrs Docherty is now considering all options to prevent the recurrence of her arrest and treatment, including legal action against the police

Last September was the second time Mrs Docherty had been arrested for peacefully offering consensual conversation in a “buffer zone”. Her first arrest for peaceful expression was on 19 February 2025, and the Procurator Fiscal later backed down and decided not to proceed with a prosecution in August, in a free speech win.

Mrs Docherty was the first person to be criminally charged under Scotland’s 2024 “buffer zone” law, which forbids the “influencing” of anyone seeking to access, provide or facilitate abortion and is enforced within 200 metres of every hospital where abortions occur. There are similar “buffer zone” laws in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

On 27 April, Sheriff Stuart Reid dismissed two charges of “influencing” against Mrs Docherty, ruling that the charges violated her Article 10 ECHR right to freedom of expression.

Sheriff Reid found that the charges were not “prescribed by law”, since they failed to state or identify another person in the “buffer zone” that was present for the purpose of accessing, providing or facilitating abortion, and who was criminally “influenced” by Mrs Docherty’s actions, as is required by the law.

The judge concluded that the Procurator Fiscal had “failed to disclose an offence known to the law of Scotland” and dismissed the case pro loco et tempore, meaning the matter can be brought back if prosecutors bring improved evidence and decide that a prosecution continues to be in the public interest.

Rose Docherty said:

“I am very pleased with this development, which reinforces that offering consensual conversation is not a crime on any public street in Scotland—regardless of whether or not that street is in a ‘buffer zone’. Today, there is sadly an epidemic of loneliness and people experience coercion every day. An offer to speak, which can be freely accepted or refused by any person, could really help someone and should never be criminalised.

“Peaceful expression, which is protected by national and international law, can never be a crime. The authorities should learn from their failed attempts to censor me—a 75-year-old Christian grandmother, who has always lived in Glasgow—and refrain in the future from criminalising me or any person who lawfully expresses their rights in this country.

“I repeat my call for ‘buffer zone’ laws to be repealed in Scotland and across the UK, to prevent them being used to censor peaceful expression like mine.

“I am now consulting with my legal team and considering what actions are necessary, including legal action, to ensure the authorities are not able to repeatedly arrest, imprison and prosecute me for peacefully exercising my right to free speech.“

Barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International, Jeremiah Igunnubole commented:

“Rose’s free speech win last month has now been solidified by the Crown Office’s decision not to appeal. This is a victory for freedom of expression in Scotland and across the UK.

“Regardless of whether people agree with Rose’s pro-life and Christian views, all should be able to agree that offering to speak with people in a public space is not a crime and must never be treated as one.

“However, ‘buffer zone’ legislation across the UK continues to dangerously undermine the rule of law. It is inconsistent that Rose has been vindicated in Scotland, while our clients Livia Tossici-Bolt and Adam Smith-Connor have been criminally convicted for peaceful expression in ‘buffer zones’ elsewhere in the UK.

“The only way to robustly protect fundamental rights, uphold the rule of law in the UK, and ensure that ‘buffer zones’ are not used as a tool to censor lawful conduct is to repeal the deeply flawed, anti-free speech laws that impose thought-crime restrictions in Scotland and across the UK.

“We have already seen the US State Department strongly criticise the UK’s ‘buffer zone’ censorship and express deep concern over the cases of Rose and our other clients. If politicians do not act to protect free speech, the alarming reality is that Great Britain will cease to be a place where human rights are respected as they once were, and our reputation on the world stage will suffer as a result.

“Although Rose has been vindicated, she should never have been arrested. The process has become the punishment, with a deeply concerning chilling effect on free speech more broadly.

“We are now supporting Rose in considering all her options, including legal action, to ensure such treatment is not repeated or normalised. Standing in a public space offering a consensual conversation is not, as Sheriff Reid put it, “an offence not known to the law of Scotland”. We will continue to stand with Rose to keep the peaceful exercise of free speech rights out of the criminal courts.”

Background

Mrs Docherty’s censorial arrest sparked expressions of concern in the UK and around the world, including from the US State Department, which described it as “another egregious example of the tyrannical suppression of free speech happening across Europe”, and from the Scottish Catholic Bishops’ Conference.

The architect of Scotland’s 2024 “buffer zone” law, Gillian Mackay MSP, admitted on BBC Scotland that the vague prohibitions in the legislation could criminalise someone for praying visibly from a window in their home within the zone, “depending on who’s passing by the window”. 

US Vice President JD Vance highlighted this law as a particular matter for concern in his Munich Security Conference speech in February last year.

Read more about the case here.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

(First and second pictures: Rose Docherty and Legal Counsel for ADF International Jeremiah Igunnubole outside Glasgow Sheriff Court, following the ruling clearing Rose on 27 April; Rose Docherty outside the court)

Christian pastor cleared as police end criminal investigation, following arrest for commenting on Islam and transgender ideology while street preaching 

  • Pastor Dia Moodley, 58, was arrested for peaceful street preaching in Bristol

  • Police drop matter in free speech win, after months long criminal investigation; ADF International supported legal defence

  • Avon & Somerset Police refuse to investigate Muslim man who threatened pastor during Easter street preaching

A Muslim man threatened Pastor Moodley for his peaceful Easter street preaching. Police refused to investigate

BRISTOL (16 May 2026) – Police have dropped the criminal investigation into a Christian pastor who was arrested for commenting on Islam and transgender ideology while street preaching in Bristol city centre, in a free speech win. 

After more than four months of criminal investigation, Avon & Somerset Police informed Pastor Dia Moodley, 58, that “no further action will be taken”, following the pastor’s arrest for his peaceful preaching in Broadmead last November. ADF International supported the pastor’s legal defence.  

Pastor Moodley was subjected to arrest, eight hours in a police cell, a police visit to his home, interrogation at the police station and the initial imposition of bail conditions that banned him from entering and therefore preaching in Bristol city centre over Christmas.  

Although the bail conditions were dropped, following Pastor Moodley’s representations to the police, the ongoing criminal investigation resulted in de facto censorship, as the pastor refrained from publicly preaching over Christmas and in the weeks leading to Easter, due to the risk of rearrest if he engaged in street preaching while the investigation continued. 

The pastor was arrested on November 22, 2025, for peacefully sharing his Christian views in the public square, on suspicion of “inciting religious hatred” and committing a Section 4A religiously aggravated public order offence under the Public Order Act 1986.  

That was the second time Avon and Somerset Police have arrested the pastor for commenting on Islam and transgender ideology while street preaching. After his first arrest in March 2024, the police also dropped their investigation. 

The pastor has faced repeated violence and threats from bystanders while street preaching, many of which the police have failed to adequately address.  

Most recently, the pastor was threatened by a Muslim man who disagreed with his preaching on the day before Easter. 

On Saturday April 4, while the criminal investigation into him was still ongoing, Pastor Moodley preached in Broadmead about Jesus Christ’s resurrection. He spoke about how when Jesus is compared with figures from all other religions, including Mohammed, it was only Jesus who rose from the dead.

The pastor said: “Krishna, Buddha, Mohammed and your favourite philosopher did not rise from the dead, only Jesus rose from the dead.” 

A Muslim bystander said he heard the “disgusting” things the pastor said about the “[Islamic] prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him”. The man can be heard on camera saying: “If you do that again bro, we’ll send the boys round… we’ll have someone have a word with you.” 

The pastor criminally reported the man to Avon & Somerset Police, but officers shockingly refused to investigate the incident, telling the pastor on 1 May: “Comments made to you whilst unpleasant that do not constitute an offence [sic].” 

Police said “we cannot sure the context of his comments [sic]” and that “the report will be filed insufficient evidence to proceed at this time”, despite the fact that the threat—which the pastor perceived to be a threat of violence—was captured on camera.  

April 4 was the first day the pastor had publicly preached since his arrest, as the then-ongoing criminal investigation effectively censored his public preaching for months, due to the risk of rearrest.  

He decided to preach on the day before Easter despite the risk, as he felt it was his duty as a Christian pastor called to street preaching. Police did not attend on that occasion, unlike in the past, and many members of the public, both Christian and non-Christian, who had seen news of the pastor’s case, were supportive and offered encouragement. 

The police informed Pastor Moodley they had dropped their criminal investigation on April 8.  

Pastor Moodley is now consulting with his legal team about taking legal action against Avon & Somerset Police, for the violation of his free speech rights and for the police’s failure to promptly investigate serious crimes against him.  

Pastor Dia Moodley said: 

“I’m glad Avon and Somerset Police decided to eventually do the right thing and drop their criminal investigation. This is a win for free speech, but I never should have been arrested, treated like a criminal, and investigated for months for peacefully sharing my faith in the public square. 

“Avon and Somerset Police have arrested me twice because my lawful speech was seen as offensive to some Muslims and people with a progressive worldview. Meanwhile, the police have shockingly failed to investigate violence and threats against me, committed by those who object to my speech. This is the definition of two-tier policing and must end.    

“What has happened to this country, that police ignore clearly criminal incidents like this most recent one—which I perceived to be a threat of violence—and choose instead to criminalise Christian speech? I am now consulting with my legal team about taking legal action against Avon and Somerset Police, for the violation of my rights. 

“I will continue to share my faith publicly, undeterred by the police’s censorship and the threats and violence I have faced, and will stand for free speech not just for myself, but for the rights of all people in the UK.” 

Barrister and Legal Counsel for ADF International Jeremiah Igunnubole commented: 

“Avon and Somerset Police’s decision to drop their investigation is a vindication of Pastor Dia’s lawful conduct. He has been repeatedly arrested, imprisoned, and told that expressing his Christian views is a criminal matter. On every occasion, he has challenged this state overreach and prevailed.  

“It is deeply troubling, however, that police treated Pastor Dia’s constructive comments on Islam and gender ideology—remarks which were made in good faith, were an expression of his core Christian beliefs and which explicitly invited dialogue—as a criminal matter, while dismissing a clear and dangerous threat made against him by a Muslim bystander as merely an ‘unpleasant’ incident.  

“This two-tier approach to policing inevitably produces unjust and discriminatory outcomes. It can only be addressed by repealing the underlying censorial legislation and renewed efforts to retrain ideologically motivated police forces who too often find themselves unable or unwilling to differentiate between a lawful exercise of fundamental rights and actual violent criminality.  

“The war of attrition against free speech in the UK, demonstrated in Pastor Dia’s case, must end. Censorial laws need to be repealed urgently, and stronger protections, including a Free Speech Bill, are needed to reverse the growing culture of censorship within law enforcement.  

“We remain fully committed to standing with Pastor Dia as he considers legal action against the police for these violations of his rights and their failure to protect him from serious crime.” 

Read more about Pastor Moodley’s arrest last November here. Read more about the past censorship he has faced here. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Pastor Dia Moodley, Pastor Moodley and Jeremiah Igunnubole, man threatens Pastor Moodley during Easter preaching, Pastor Moodley being arrested in November 2025

Australian court dismisses appeal to uphold biological reality in ‘What is a woman?’ case

  • Australian Federal Court rules that “Giggle for Girls” app’s female-only membership policy “directly discriminated” against man who identifies as woman 
  • Founder Sall Grover has indicated she intends to appeal to Australia’s highest court  

SYDNEY (15 May 2026) – The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia today ruled against a female-only networking app, in a blow to upholding biological reality and women-only spaces.  

The Court dismissed an appeal from Sall Grover, founder of female networking app Giggle for Girls, who in August 2024 was ruled to have “indirectly discriminated” against Roxanne Tickle, a man who identifies as a woman, by removing him from the app. The 2024 Tickle v. Giggle ruling stated that “sex is not confined to being a biological concept”. 

The Federal Court today ruled that Grover and Giggle for Girls had engaged in “direct discrimination”, following a cross-appeal of the lower court’s decision by Tickle, and awarded Tickle $20,000 AUD in damages plus legal costs capped at $100,000 AUD. 

ADF International supported Grover and Giggle’s case on the basis that Australian law should uphold biological reality and protect women’s spaces in accordance with international human rights law. 

Tickle’s discrimination claim was made under the Sex Discrimination Act, which was amended in 2013 to include “gender identity” and to remove definitions of “man” and “woman”.  

Today’s ruling stated: “While this appeal raises issues on which there are differing views within the community, it is important to emphasise that the issues for determination by the Court involve the construction and application of provisions of the SDA [Sex Discrimination Act]. The desirability or otherwise of that law is not a matter open to this Court to consider.” 

“I am absolutely devastated. Men who claim to be women have more rights than actual women in Australia. It is women who are being discriminated against, not the men who claim to be us. But in a sense, nothing has changed: we will all wake up tomorrow & men will still not be women.”

- Sall Grover

Grover reacted to the ruling on X: 

“I am absolutely devastated. Men who claim to be women have more rights than actual women in Australia. It is women who are being discriminated against, not the men who claim to be us. But in a sense, nothing has changed: we will all wake up tomorrow & men will still not be women.” 

The Court previously ruled in Tickle’s favour, finding that he experienced “indirect discrimination,” and ordered “Giggle for Girls” to pay $10,000 AUD in compensation and to cover Tickle’s legal costs.  

In December 2025, Grover’s appeal maintaining that the term “female” referred to biological females only, was heard before the Full Court.  

The Court today rejected Grover’s appeal and allowed Tickle’s counter appeal that he had experienced “direct discrimination”. 

“A law written to protect women has been used to punish a woman for creating a space for women. That is what today’s judgment means in practice,” said Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International.  

“The addition of ‘gender identity’ to the Sex Discrimination Act has been used to undermine the most basic conception of what a woman is. The need for single-sex spaces is recognised in international human rights law. It must be recognised in Australian law too, and if the courts will not say so, then Parliament must.” 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

East African Court case filed: Christian communities in DRC left unable to worship after targeted attacks on churches, charities

  • Religious freedom advocates demand a halt to attacks, financial compensation to rebuild destroyed churches; ADF International legally supporting the case.  
  • Continued attacks in the region aimed to destroy the central Christian religious pillars of the Banyamulenge ethnic group. 

NAIROBI (14 MAY 2026)  – Christian communities in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have been left unable to freely practice their faith following a series of targeted attacks that have destroyed churches and other religious sites. In a case filed at the East African Court of Justice, advocates are calling for DRC recognition of the damage inflicted during an attack on Banyamulenge Christian sites in the city of Uvira in January 2026, as well as compensation to rebuild places of worship that have been destroyed in these targeted attacks.  

The violence has not only resulted in loss of life and property, but has also undermined their ability to gather for worship. The destruction has left many without safe spaces for communal gathering, prayer, or religious community. 

“This is the often-overlooked aftermath of ethnic and religiously motivated violence. Beyond the immediate devastation, these attacks leave lasting scars on communities. In this case, these Christians from the Banyamulenge community in the DRC are now significantly hindered in their ability to worship, gather and live out their faith."

- Sean Nelson, Senior Counsel for Global Religious Freedom at ADF International

“This is the often-overlooked aftermath of ethnic and religiously motivated violence,” said Sean Nelson, Senior Counsel for Global Religious Freedom at ADF International. “Beyond the immediate devastation, these attacks leave lasting scars on communities. In this case, these Christians from the Banyamulenge community in the DRC are now significantly hindered in their ability to worship, gather and live out their faith.” 

The primary attack took place on 18 January 2026, when the DRC military and aligned militia groups recaptured the city of Uvira from M23 rebels who had occupied the city for months. However, members within the newly arrived forces then began deliberately destroying five Christian churches and other faith-based organisations held and used by the Banyamulenge community. The Banyamulenge are Congolese ethnic Tutsis that militant and radical ethnic Hutus have falsely accused of sympathy with foreign forces. Additionally, over 70 Banyamulenge homes were destroyed. These attacks were specifically carried out to destroy the central Christian religious pillars of the Banyamulenge in Uvira as a means of erasing their ethno-religious identity.  

Advocates are now calling on authorities in the DRC to take immediate action to halt further attacks and ensure the protection of vulnerable religious communities. ADF International is supporting the case before the court. The case was filed at the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) on 11 March 2026 at the subregistry in Nairobi. The EACJ filing included affidavits from leaders and members of the Uvira church communities affected. 

“It is only right that the DRC acts swiftly to prevent further violence, takes responsibility and supports the reconstruction of destroyed churches and religious properties,” said Innocent Nteziryayo, named counsel for the churches and representatives for the Banyamulenge community before the East African Court of Justice. “Banyamulenge communities must be able to rebuild not only their homes, but also the churches and organizations that sustain their spiritual and communal life.” 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only