IN the midst of calls for “restructuring”, the Federal Government is facilitating a constitutional amendment which may help Nigerians view the 1999 Constitution as a “peoples’ constitution”.
The National Assembly, earlier this year, made it clear that the desires of Nigerians —individuals and groups— will be captured in this new amendment so a number of public hearings would be organized in due process. It was from one of such hearings that a memo was submitted to the Senate Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution proposing the implementation of Sharia in the south west region of Nigeria.
On Wednesday, the 26TH of May 2021, the Nigerian Senate finally commenced its zonal public hearings on constitutional amendments across the country. These public hearings, as the Senate planned, would take place across all the geopolitical zones in Nigeria for the purpose of collecting public opinion. The Muslim Congress (TMC) made numerous proposals at the zonal public hearing of the ongoing constitutional amendment in Lagos including the enforcement of the Sharia Law in South-West Nigeria. TMC representative, Abdulganiyu Bamidele, said that the implementation of Sharia would help protect the interests of Muslim faithful in the Yoruba-speaking region of the country.
On behalf of The Muslim Congress, Mr. Bamidele said “We want to partner for the creation of Sharia courts in the south west because of our population of Muslims.” The Muslim Congress has made this bold step in legislation among other demands as regards local government autonomy, judicial autonomy, state policing, legislative autonomy, community policing, and gender equality. The proposal is already leading to heated exchanges between the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria and the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC).
The Media Office of PFN President, Bishop Francis Wale Oke, immediately criticized the proposal and urged federal lawmakers to focus on proposals which proffer workable solutions to the catalogue of problems facing Nigeria at the moment. They argued that Sharia is “alien” to the way of life in South west Nigeria and it is bound to be the seed of interreligious conflicts. MURIC has clapped back on the statement of the PFN by insisting that Sharia is not alien to South West Nigeria since it had been present even before Christianity was introduced to the region.
The director of MURIC, Professor Ishaq Akintola, responded that Sharia is “the Allah-given fundamental human right of Muslims” and Christians have no place in discussing whether Muslims want it or not. This proposal has nothing to do with non-Muslims who choose to live however they want, it is a valuable investment in the wellbeing of Muslims living in this part of Nigeria.
Irrespective of the arguments that will go on between these religious groups for months, Senate will eventually have the final say. The constitutional amendment exercise is a significant test for the 9TH National Assembly. Our legislators know that accepting or rejecting this proposal will certainly leave one of the religious groups unsatisfied. The whole constitutional amendment procedure is still viewed with cynical eyes, and the National Assembly will want to rise to the occasion. No proposal is irrelevant, especially when it is the true wish of the masses. However, the socioeconomic effects of this proposal must be taken into consideration. Sharia influences lifestyle and careers, including businesses. Muslims will be prohibited —by law— from investing in the production of alcohol, processing of pork, distribution of ammunition and weapons, tobacco, gambling and casinos. Lending with interest is also Haram in Sharia, so Muslims may be prohibited from working with financial institutions that build interest to generate a return or taking interest loans and mortgages. The law will also expressly prosecute drinkers and sellers of alcoholic beverages in states with large alcohol consumption. The secularity of the South Western region of Nigeria makes it extremely difficult for Sharia to fit in. In the end, this will be the legislature’s conundrum: how can religion and the state coexist without legal contradictions?