WRITTEN QUESTION E-2496/02 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission. Sharia law in Muslim countries.
Date: 2002-09-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Islamic law, Nigeria, cruel and degrading treatment, death penalty, position of women, women's rights

C 33 E/8

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Will the Commission therefore provide figures to illustrate the extent of EU aid to countries practising
sharia? If the EU does give aid to such countries, will the Commission say whether such aid, which is
provided with no human rights conditions attached, is consistent with the Commission’s understanding of
law and order, and whether it should be withdrawn immediately?

(2004/C 33 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2496/02

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(9 September 2002)

Subject: Sharia law in Muslim countries

On 19 August 2002, a young woman named Amina Lawal was condemned to death by stoning by a court
in northern Nigeria. Her ‘crime’ consists in having had a relationship with a man to whom she is not
married!

This is not an isolated case or a situation confined to Nigeria. Young women being condemned to death by
stoning is a common occurrence in Muslim countries which practise sharia law. There have been several
similar cases in Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and a number of other Muslim countries.

Stoning young women for infidelity and extramarital sex is a situation that any normal thinking person
condemns. Indeed, women’s rights groups,
immigrant organisations, Amnesty International and others
have condemned the verdict handed down in Nigeria.

The international community must respond if such barbaric acts of cruelty are to be prevented in the
future.

Will the Commission, therefore, say what it will do in the specific case of Ms Lawal? Will it also say in
which countries sharia is practised and how many cases of the stoning of women occur on an annual basis
in each of the countries practising sharia?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2495/02 and E-2496/02
given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2002)

The Union has consistently opposed the imposition of the death penalty and has set out its policy in the
Guidelines to EU policy towards third countries on the death penalty (1). These guidelines refer not only to
the Union’s goal of worldwide abolition of the death penalty they also underline that those States, which
persist in applying the penalty must do so in a manner which inflicts the minimum possible suffering.
Clearly, the practice of stoning does not conform to that condition.

The Commission has offered concrete support for projects to support the abolition of the death penalty
worldwide. The results of a Call
for Proposals for EUR 7 million under the European Initiative for
Democracy and Human Rights are currently being evaluated.

In the case of Amina Lawal, the decision has been appealed to the Sharia Court of Appeal in Katsina.
Amina can appeal further to the Federal Court of Appeal in Kaduna and to the Federal Supreme Court in
Abuja. Amina cannot be executed while breastfeeding her infant, that is until January 2004. The Union
issued a declaration on 21 August 2002 expressing its deep concern about the sentence. The Union has
urged the Government of Nigeria to abolish the death penalty, or, as a first step, establish a moratorium.
Furthermore, it expresses its concern at inhuman punishments inflicted in some states in Nigeria. The
Commission, through its Delegation in Abuja, will follow the evolution of the Amina case attentively. No
executions by stoning have yet taken place in Nigeria. For Nigeria,
the Commission notified a 9th
European Development Fund (EDF) allocation of EUR 222 million in March 2001. Including unspent sums
from previous EDFs, the total available for programming is EUR 552 million.

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/9

The Union adopts a similar approach for other countries which impose cruel and inhuman sentences such
as stoning. In the case of Iran, Amnesty International has reported the execution of at least 139 people in
2001 with two women reported as stoned to death. The Union tabled a resolution at the 56th United
Nations General Assembly which, inter alia, deplored the use of such executions and the issue is raised in
dialogue with the Iranian authorities. Iran is not at this stage subject to any project programming by the
Commission, which, however, over the years has financed a limited number of activities in sectors such as
drugs and refugees.

The Commission is not in a position to provide detailed information on countries practising sharia and the
precise number of stonings in each such country.

All Community agreements with third countries include a clause stipulating that respect for human rights
is an essential element of the agreement.
its human rights
obligations, suspension of the Agreement is possible. However, suspending aid to a country would
normally be more detrimental to the poorer sections of society and would decrease our possibility to exert
pressure in cases such as these. It is therefore a measure of last resort.

In the event that a party fails to fulfil

(1) Available at www.europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/human_rights.

(2004/C 33 E/010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2558/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 September 2002)

Subject: Financial control 2: opposing views on the part of members of the Commission and of the

administration

1. Why did the Commission take the risk, despite the damage this was likely to cause (see previous
series of questions), of further alienating public opinion by removing the former head of the accountancy
service Marta Andreasen from office in May 2002, after she warned, first internally and later publicly,
about the Commission’s poor internal controls?

2.
Does the Commission recall that this is not the first time that an official has been removed from
office for voicing criticism in this way? What lessons has it learned from the earlier case of dismissal (Paul
van Buitenen, 1999)?

3.
Is the Commission surprised that the criticisms made by Mrs Andreasen were later confirmed by
Jules Muis, head of the internal audit service, as well as by the European Court of Auditors, which,
according to a report in the Financial Times, considers that the Commission’s accounting systems are
unreliable and insecure and fail to take account of generally accepted accounting standards or to use
double-entry bookkeeping methods which,
facilitate control of revenues and
expenditure?

in comparable cases,

Have the documents prepared by the Court of Auditors and by Mr Muis been made public, so as to

4.
enable anyone wishing to do so to verify the criticisms leaked by the press? If not, why not?

5. Why, following a statement by Mrs Andreasen in London on 1 August 2002 claiming that the EU
budget was highly susceptible to fraud, that the system was worse than that of the collapsed American
companies Enron and WorldCom, that there was no means of verifying figures and that fraud could be
concealed in the system without anyone seeing or detecting it, did Commissioner Schreyer help further
discredit the way in which the EU operates by responding that the report by the Court of Auditors would
not be published because it contained errors and because the tenor of the report was inaccurate and that
Mrs Andreasen should never have been recruited?

6.
Does the Commission consider (cid:1) not only in this case but also in other cases (cid:1) that it is an
appropriate and effective administrative response to brand conflicting opinions ‘inaccurate’ and to use this
description as an argument for excluding them from the debate, or is it willing from now on to abandon
such an approach?