Gillian Gibbons Update
According to this CNN.com article,
Gibbons had been charged under Article 125 of Sudan’s constitution, the law relating to insulting religion and inciting hatred.
According to the Sudanese Embassy in Canada [pdf], Article 125 of the Constitution of the Republic of the Sudan (1998) reads:
Article 125
Popular Defense Force
- The Republic of Sudan may establish a volunteer Popular Defense Force from among the Sudanese people for national defense, to maintain national security, or to assist any regular forces. The Popular Defense Force shall be under the command of the National Armed Forces or the Police and shall promote defense, security and other general purposes.
- The law shall determine organization, duties and supervision over the Popular Defense Forces.
This Article 125 gives the government the power to establish, basically, a volunteer National Guard.
There is also an Interim National Constitution of the Republic of the Sudan, (2005). Its Article 125 reads:
- The National Supreme Court shall:
- be a court of cassation and review in respect of any criminal, civil and administrative matters arising out of, or under national laws, or personal matters,
- have criminal jurisdiction over the Justices of the Constitutional Court,
- review death sentences imposed by any court in respect to matters arising out of, or under national laws,
- have such other jurisdiction as determined by this Constitution and the law.
- The Chief Justice of the Republic of the Sudan may establish panels for the purposes of considering and deciding on matters requiring special expertise, including commercial,
personal or labour matters.
This Article 125 sets up the jurisdiction of the Sudanese Supreme Court, and enables the Chief Justice to establish panels of Special Masters.
What the hell do either of these have to do with blasphemy, sharia, whipping, or teddy bears? Or the criminal law in general? Ms. Gibbons cannot have been “charged under Article 125 of Sudan’s constitution,” as the CNN.com article says. Neither provision (and I cannot tell for sure which one is currently in effect in Sudan; I have conflicting sources) has anything whatsoever to do with the issue, unless Ms. Gibbons’ prosecution is being heard by the Supreme Court of Sudan, which isn’t mentioned. Even if that were the case, Ms. Gibbons cannot have been charged under Article 125, because Article 125 does not provide for the charging of criminals.
I do so wish CNN.com would do just a teensy bit of fact-checking.
I suspect the mistake they made was not the number of the Article, but that they cited the Constitution. The charge is probably Article 135 of some type of Sudanese Code of Criminal Procedure, or some such legislation.
That’s what I’m starting to think, too. A number of other news outlets are indicating that the spokeswoman referred to Article 125 of the penal code, not the constitution.
The penal code I cited in my previous post on this subject was from 2003. I haven’t been able to find a post-2005 version of the penal code. The old one was divided by sections, not articles, and Sec.125 of that code is even less relevant. The Wikipedia article on the subject, citing a BBC source, says Section 125, not Article.
I suspect that, when the Sudanese government changed forms in 2005, they enacted a revised penal code, more recent than the one to which I have been referring. My guess is that Sec.242 of the old code got renumbered to Sec.125 in the new code, and the new code must have added whipping as a possible punishment. (Whipping doesn’t appear in Sec.242 of the old code.)
Nonetheless, CNN.com was still rather sloppy to cite it as the constitution, rather than the criminal code.
~Q