Paul Akomolehin, South West
DAILY COURIER - The controversy surrounding the proposed introduction of a Shari’a Court in the South-West has continued to generate mixed reactions from various religious and political stakeholders. While some groups support the initiative, others strongly oppose it, citing concerns over Nigeria’s secular nature.
The issue resurfaced when a Muslim group planned to inaugurate a Shari’a Panel at the Muslim Community Islamic Centre in the Mobolaje area of Oyo State. However, Governor Seyi Makinde rejected the proposal, arguing that it was inconsistent with the Nigerian Constitution.
“They want to bring the issue of Shari’a to Oyo State. As for me, it is the Constitution of Nigeria that I swore to uphold. If it’s in the Constitution, there’s no problem. But, if it’s not, they should expect that I will insist that the Constitution must be followed,” Makinde stated in a viral video.
Following his comments, the Supreme Council for Shari’a in Nigeria (SCSN), Oyo Branch, announced the indefinite postponement of the planned inauguration, with the Khadimul Muslimeen of Oyo Kingdom, Imam Daud Igi Ogun, confirming the decision in a statement.
Similarly, Governor Dapo Abiodun of Ogun State declared that no Shari’a Court would be allowed to operate in the state, emphasizing that only courts established under the Nigerian Constitution had the legal authority to adjudicate disputes.
The Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) countered the criticisms, clarifying that the proposed initiative was a Shari’a Panel, not a court. MURIC’s founder, Prof. Ishaq Akintola, accused opponents of creating unnecessary tension.
“A Yoruba group under the name Yoruba Council Worldwide has threatened legal action against Muslims planning to launch a Shari’a court in Oyo town, Oyo State. But in reality, nobody is planning to inaugurate a Shari’a court. What is being planned is a Shari’a panel, which is simply an arbitration committee,” Akintola explained.
The Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA), through its President-General, His Eminence, Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar, criticized the opposition to the initiative, calling it a violation of Muslims’ rights.
Speaking through Imam Haroun Muhammad Eze, the Deputy National Legal Adviser, the Sultan stated, “The Independent Arbitration Panel, designed for civil and marital dispute resolution among consenting Muslims, was to fill the vacuum created by the failure of South-West political elites to establish Shari’a Courts, despite the large Muslim population in the region.”
The NSCIA insisted that Muslims in the South-West had a constitutional right to such a panel and urged state governments to ensure that religious freedoms were respected.
Opposition from Christian groups was swift. The Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN) and the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) rejected the idea, warning that it could cause religious divisions.
PFN’s Ondo State Chairman, Pastor Joshua Opayinka, said, “The creation of a Shari’a Court in Ondo State is an aberration. Can we have full Christian worship activities in the North? If they want a Shari’a Court, let us sit at the round table and strike a balance.”
Similarly, Oyo PFN Chairman, Revd Samson Ajetomobi, urged for caution, saying, “While some advocate for Shari’a law, we must consider its implications on the rights of all citizens, particularly non-Muslims.”
Oyo CAN Chairman, Apostle Joshua Akiyemiju, echoed these sentiments, asserting, “Nigeria is built on secularism. Introducing Shari’a in a multi-religious society could create unnecessary divisions.”
Yoruba Self-Determination Group leader, Prof. Banji Akintoye, opposed the Sultan’s remarks, insisting that Yorubaland would not accept Shari’a law.
“Your representative made a statement as if you are an overlord of the Yoruba people. What you are trying to do in Yorubaland – imposing fundamentalist and Jihadist Islam – will never materialize,” Akintoye declared.
The debate over Shari’a in the South-West highlights the ongoing religious and legal tensions in Nigeria’s diverse society. While Muslim leaders insist that the initiative is an exercise of religious rights, Christian groups warn against its potential implications on Nigeria’s secular fabric. As the discourse continues, stakeholders emphasize the need for dialogue, mutual respect, and constitutional adherence in resolving the contentious issue.
