³ Some of the modifications which have been introduced are, indeed, significant. Thus the pure Maliki law allows the heirs of blood themselves to dispatch the convicted murderer, usually in the very way in which he disposed of his victim; whereas under the “Maliki” law as locally applied the convicted murderer's life still depends, in some cases, on the will of the heirs of blood, but his execution, if they demand it, invariably takes the form of hanging by the public hangman. This modification rests on statutory authority.

^{page 88 note 1} In so far as all legislative enactments were concerned this was true, it is important to observe, right up till the promulgation of the Northern Region Native Courts Law and Moslem Court of Appeal Law, in 1956.

^{page 88 note 2} Native Courts Ordinance, 1933, section 10.

^{page 90 note 1} [1957] N.R.N.L.R. 57.

^{page 91 note 1} But in the various arguments adduced in support of this proposition it seems, with great respect, that the learned judgments went somewhat beyond the facts.

^{91 note 2} This, as pointed out by the learned Chief Justice of the Northern Region, in fact represents a confusion between sections 5 and 4 of the Ordinance of 1948, for section 5 has nothing whatever to do with appeals; but this scarcely affects the point at issue.

^{page 92 note 1} [1957] N.R.N.L.R. 73.

^{page 93 note 1} See Appendix D to Record of Second Judicial Advisers’ Conference, pp. 45 et seq.

^{page 93 note 2} Cp. the conclusion of the Judicial Advisers’ Conference regarding the meaning of this proviso (pp. 18 et seq. of the Record).

^{page 93 note 3} See Appendix D to die Conference Record, pp. 46 et seq.

^{page 93 note 4} [1957] N.R.N.L.R. 80.

^{page 94 note 1} The learned Chief Justice of the Northern Region in his judgment in Fagoji's case also, with the utmost respect, seems to have mis-interpreted this proviso.

^{page 94 note 2} For it rests on the assumption that a sentence of imprisonment was not one which the native court “could” have imposed in the circumstances—which seems contradictory to the requirement of the proviso to section 82 of the Native Courts Law (see above).

^{page 95 note 1} See the conclusion of the Judicial Advisers‘ Conference on this point (at pp. 18 et seq. of the Record).

^{page 95 note 2} In regard, that is, to the punishments which are applicable.

^{page 95 note 3} [1956] N.R.N.L.R. 15.

^{page 96 note 1} See p. 19 of the Record.

^{page 96 note 2} And this, clearly, could not be done without an understanding and determination of what precise offence the relevant act or omission constituted under the provisions of the Code.

^{page 97 note 1} Cp. Report of Judicial Advisers‘ Conference, pp. 19 and 45–8.

^{page 97 note 2} Reported post, at pp, 137 et seq.

^{page 97 note 3} And also section 22 of the Northern Region Native Courts Law, 1956; but this was not yet in force.