Kanthapuram AP Aboobacker Musliyar tells The Federal that the PMO and the Foreign Ministry were aware of efforts made through his office to get the execution in Yemen revoked
In his first detailed response since the revocation of the death sentence handed to Nimisha Priya in Yemen, Kanthapuram AP Aboobacker Musliyar aka Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad, the Grand Mufti of India, has told The Federal that all efforts made through his office were kept in the loop with the Prime Minister’s Office as well as the Ministry of External Affairs.
He said that while the Indian government faced limitations in officially intervening in northern Yemen, his long-standing personal and spiritual ties with Yemeni scholars even helped create a space where dialogue with the victim’s family could begin.
“We didn’t overstep. We only eased the government’s path,” he said, underlining that the intervention was rooted not in parallel diplomacy but in a sense of humanitarian and moral duty.
In an exclusive interview with The Federal, Kanthapuram opened up on how the deal came together behind the scenes, the pivotal role played by Sufi scholar Sheikh Al-Habib Umar bin Hafeez, and why criticisms around his intervention missed the larger point.
Can it now be authoritatively stated that the death penalty for Nimisha Priya, the Malayali nurse jailed in Yemen, has been revoked?
The execution scheduled for July 16 had already been temporarily deferred due to the intervention of Sufi scholars and legal experts from northern Yemen. Since then, representatives of Sheikh Al Habib Umar bin Hafeez have been engaging with the family and officials.
This entire process was navigated using the possibilities offered within Islamic Shariah law in criminal cases. The decisive factor was the intervention of Sheikh Umar’s representatives, who managed to bring the victim’s family into the dialogue.
As a result of these ongoing efforts, a high-level meeting held in Sana’a on July 28 decided to revoke the death penalty. This information was conveyed to us by our representatives in Yemen.
How was the agreement reached with the family of the deceased? What was Sheikh Al-Habib’s role in this?
Under Yemeni law, only the legal heirs of the murdered person can pardon someone sentenced to death. If they offer a pardon, the execution is waived—this can be done with or without accepting blood money.
When people approached me asking for intervention, I inquired about the case and learned from Yemenis themselves that it was a high-profile murder that had stirred deep emotions in the country. Because of that, neither the action committee nor others were able to reach out to the victim’s family.
This is where the intervention of Sheikh Al-Habib Umar bin Hafeez proved crucial. It opened up the space for a conversation with the family. Freezing the scheduled execution on July 16 was a necessary step toward initiating dialogue. Once the family showed a willingness to talk, further steps became easier.
Following a detailed briefing by the attorney general to the criminal court, the execution was deferred. In the days that followed, Sheikh Habib Umar’s representatives, the family, government officials in Sana’a, and even some international diplomats held discussions. This led to the progress we now see.
This entire process was navigated using the possibilities offered within Islamic Shariah law in criminal cases. The decisive factor was the intervention of Sheikh Umar’s representatives, who managed to bring the victim’s family into the dialogue. Without that, none of this would have been possible.
What’s next in this matter, especially since the victim’s brother appears to oppose the decision?
Now that the death sentence has been revoked, clarity is needed on the remaining sentence or possible pardon. That will only come through further discussions with the victim’s legal heirs. They are the ones taking part in the discussions.
Our representatives in Yemen have informed us that a favourable outcome is likely soon.
How did you get involved in this case in the first place—what led to your intervention?
As the execution date drew near, members of the action committee and people’s representatives began contacting me, asking what could be done. I responded saying we could explore possible options.
What saddened me was that instead of trying to reassure the Yemeni victim’s family, some voices from our own land seemed to provoke them. The Yemenis stepped in out of affection for our people. So how should they perceive these actions?
Meanwhile, since India does not have diplomatic relations with Yemen, the attorney general informed the Supreme Court that the Indian government was limited in what it could do. That’s when I reached out to Habib Umar bin Hafeez, my long-time friend and someone who deeply loves Indians. I also set up a coordination mechanism in my office.
We’ve had long-standing ties with Yemeni scholars, even dating back to India’s freedom struggle. Some Yemeni scholars played major roles then. Mamburam Thangal and Sayyid Fadl Thangal, who were exiled from India by the British, were Yemenis. Sheikh Habib Umar is a spiritual heir of that lineage.
Your intervention also attracted criticism, with some saying it derailed discussions. How do you respond to that?
Such things are normal. But our intervention was solely focused on the legal efforts to save the life of a fellow Malayali.
What saddened me, however, was that instead of trying to reassure the Yemeni victim’s family, some voices from our own land seemed to provoke them. The Yemenis stepped in out of affection for our people. So, how should they perceive these actions?
Muslim leaders and authorities around the world treat me as a representative of a nation with one of the largest Muslim populations. The respect and responsibility they extend to us should not be undermined.
Is the Union government reluctant to acknowledge your intervention?
From the beginning, we have kept the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of External Affairs informed about what we’ve done and intend to do. I had also conveyed that unless government representatives are involved, the process may not reach full completion. These suggestions were considered by the government.
It is ultimately the government that must handle legal and diplomatic matters. We neither intend nor are capable of doing what only the government can. When we realised that the Union government faced constraints in officially intervening in a case in Northern Yemen, I chose to use my personal friendships to ease the process. We believe the government is satisfied with the outcome.
The death sentence has been revoked, and now government representatives, as well as the legal teams of both the convict’s family in India and in Yemen, have the opportunity to talk directly with both the Yemeni administration and the victim’s family.
That was the goal for which I and my dear friend Umar Hafeez worked. It has been achieved.
We’ve also informed the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of External Affairs that we are ready to assist further if needed.
Critics ask why you haven’t intervened in the cases of other Malayalis imprisoned in India and abroad. What’s your response?
I have made personal efforts to ensure legal assistance is made available, within the framework of the law, to many such individuals. Structured mechanisms are already in place under the leadership of Markaz and Sunni organisations to provide legal aid. More people should come forward to strengthen and expand these systems.
Our expatriate volunteers in various countries are running special programs to offer legal aid and awareness to those who fall into trouble due to a lack of legal knowledge.
Finally, as an Islamic scholar, how do you view this issue?
Everyone should be entitled to their full legal rights, without barriers of religion or nationality. Every legal system offers us something to learn. We must understand and absorb such aspects.
Fundamentally, we are all human. Let’s preserve that bond. The Prophet described forgiving when one has the power to punish as the highest form of humanity.
