From
the outset, Nigerians have been divided along three major fault lines: religion, ethnicity and
politics. But issues pertaining to religion have remained very sensitive and
they easily become volatile whenever there is political undertone to it. Hence,
even before now, the issue of the Sharia Islamic law has remained an important talking
point among the proponents and the opponents of the legal system in the
country.
Therefore,
the recent bill, which tends to increase the powers and jurisdiction of Sharia
law in Nigeria being sponsored by House of Representatives member from Gwadabawa/Illela
federal constituency of Sokoto State, Hon. Abdullahi Salame, said to have
scaled through second reading “due to its sensitivity” is already dominating
public discourse and stirring anxiety among adherents of other religious
faiths. The bill is seeking to amend Section 262 and 277 of the 1999
Constitution of the country.
Explaining
to Nigerians how the bill came about, what the lawmakers made of it and how
some sections of the country feel about it, the Deputy Chairman of the House Committee
on Media and Publicity, Hon. Jonathan Gaza Gbefwi, reportedly told an online
news portal, The Cable that:
“The bill came up on the floor and was automatically referred to the ad hoc
committee on constitution review. There was no debate on it, either for or against
because the House is a democratic representatives’ chamber of the Nigerian
people.
“Even
if five people only have an issue with any section of the constitution, the
House will give it a listening ear. The ad hoc committee on constitution review
has one member per state and women and other representation. The precedence is
that it is in this committee that these kinds of matters are thrashed out. Any
bill that has the potential to divide the country on religious or tribal lines
or to reopen settled constitutional issues will most likely fail in the
committee,” he said.
He
stressed further that constitutional review bills are special bills that
undergo many stages unlike an ordinary bills.
“These
include committee stage, plenary stage for voting by two-thirds of the House,
two-thirds of all the state Houses of Assembly before it comes back again to
the National Assembly for voting again and finally it must receive presidential
assent. We are still at a very early stage in the process and Nigerians should
not worry about bills of this nature as the House has shown over the years to
be the protector of Nigerians’ national unity and interest.”
Gbefwi’s assurances however
tally with those of Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo, while addressing concerned
Nigerians, who asked about the implications of the bill during a state of the
nation’s colloquium organised by Pastor Wale Adefarasin-led Coalition of
Nigerian Apostolic Leaders held at Guiding Light Assembly, Parkview, Lagos last
Friday.
Speaking
on the bill seeking to entrench the Sharia Law in all the 36 states of the
federation and which seems to be getting favourable attention from the National
Assembly, Osinbajo said it was erroneous to assume that government was
interested in the bill.
“First
of all, it is not right at all that the federal government is interested in any
Sharia bill. Every bill that is a government bill must come from the
Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF). This Sharia bill was presented by
somebody within the National Assembly and my understanding is that it has not
even passed the second reading.
“But
let’s even assume that it did, you cannot change a Nigerian law without a
constitutional amendment. Sharia is in the constitution since 1979 and it
applies to Muslims on issues of marriage, inheritance and others. Any change,
whatsoever, cannot come by the way of amendment within the National assembly;
it has to be by constitutional amendment.
“Aside
from both the Senate and House of Representatives, amendment of Constitution
must go to two-thirds of the states; 24 states must say they want it. So, it is
not possible, we should not waste our time and energy on it”, he counseled.
A
Law and Its Complications
It
is indeed a very complicated matter because for adherents of Islam, the
religion is a comprehensive way of life. It is embedded with peculiar
political, social, and economic system. After the military coup of 1966, the
new nation’s leaders with a criminal code drew from both secular and sharia
law. Criminal cases were tried in secular courts and so, punishments such as
amputation and flogging were removed as inhumane. Family and civil matters,
such as divorces, were still handled by sharia courts in the North. Yet,
pressure persisted for a sharia penal code.
Therefore,
in
1999, during former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration when the 36
states enjoyed relatively greater autonomy, the northern states extended Sharia
to criminal matters. They argued that only Muslims will be tried in sharia
courts but there were instances when non-Muslims were subjected to the Islamic
law. For example, drinking is forbidden in the north, irrespective of the
drinker’s faith.
Most
proponents of the Sharia law, particularly governors of the Muslim states would
say they were “fulfilling a campaign promise and meeting the yearning and
aspirations of the electorate.
The
Koran is the principal source of Islamic law, the Sharia. It contains the rules
by which Muslims all over the world are governed. It forms the basis for
relations between man and God, between individuals, whether Muslim or
non-Muslim, as well as between man and other creatures.
It
also has well-spelt-out modalities to resolve conflicts among individuals and
between a person and the state. So, to them, since the constitution guarantees
freedom of religion, Muslim faithful should be allowed to have a full
complement of their religion by having the Sharia legal codes in our national
system since there are Muslims all over the country.
But
those antagonising the Sharia legal system are rejecting it on the grounds that
the proponents are only trying to take advantage of freedom of religion to make
Islam the state religion and take precedence over the constitution.
There
are so many other issues agitating the minds of the people. For instance, can
selective imposition of Islamic law work? Is it Legal to do so? Which takes
precedence: the constitution of the state or Islamic Law? Do individual states
have a right to determine what laws govern them? Who or what is driving this
initiative and for what gain since the people are already practising their
faith in all parts of Nigeria without any hindrances?
Second,
it is impossible to conduct the affairs of a society solely on Islam law
without affecting people of the other faith like the Christians. The deadlock,
therefore, is that while Nigeria is a secular state, secular constitution
requires the separation of state and religion. But while quite a number of
other religions agree with separation of state and religion, Islam, as a
comprehensive way of life, does not accept the separation of state and religion
and the Sharia law must be implemented.
Sharia
and a Historical Timeline
In the 13th century, Arab
traders brought Islam to Northern Nigeria. Later in the 15th Century Europeans
brought Christianity to Southern Nigeria. Sometime in 1800s, the English law
replaced both Islamic and traditional African laws.
The
story took a new turn on May 29, 1999 when former Zamfara State Governor,
Senator Ahmed Sani Yerima, took office and swore to defend the secular
constitution. Later, on October 22, 1999, he declared Zamfara a theocratic
state governed under the Sharia law. On January 1, 2000, the Sharia law took
effect in the state, 26 days later, on January 27, 2000, Sharia courts were set
up to enforce the law in the state.
On February 21, 2000,
Christian demonstrations against Sharia ended in a-three-day violence in Kaduna
State. There had been several protests in which demonstrators were not
attacked.
In
retaliation, on
February 28, 2000, Igbo Christians in Aba, Abia State, attacked Muslim
minorities. The attacks quickly spread to other South-east cities such as
Umuahia, Owerri, Uyo and Onitsha. There have been several riots over the
implementation of the Sharia Law, basically involving non-Muslim minorities in
the states which implemented the system. One of such riots later killed over
100 people in October 2001 in Kano State
Following
the escalating crisis, on February 29, 2000, the Nigerian government had banned
Sharia. On March 1, 2000, then President Olusegun Obasanjo addressed the nation
about Sharia. He had said “Sharia will die a natural death”.
Yet,
determined to promote the Sharia law were Zamfara, Kaduna, Kano and Sokoto
States as at March 13, 2000. Other states that eventually adopted the legal
code along with the four above were Niger, Katsina, Bauchi, Borno, Jigawa, Kebbi State, Gombe and
Kebbi, totaling 13.
When
It Came into Force
An
important fact is that most antagonists of the Sharia Law see it as cruel, old
fashioned and outright against women.The cases of two northern ladies – Safiya
Hussaini and Amina Lawal, who were sentenced to death by stoning under sharia
law in 2002, brought northern Nigeria in negative light.
Lawal,
a single mother in Katsina State, was accused of adultery and sentenced to
death by stoning by a state Sharia court for conceiving a child out of wedlock.
Interestingly,
the father was released without conviction for lack of evidence. The conviction
provoked global outrage and condemnations from southern Nigeria. Many national
and international NGOs frantically prevailed on the federal government to
overturn her conviction. And in 2004, the conviction was overturned by the
Sharia Court of Appeal, and Lawal returned to private life.
Recently,
in 2014, a man, Mubarak Bala was forced to stay in a psychiatric institution in
Kano for 18 days. He was alleged to have been forcibly drugged after stating that
he was an atheist. In 2002, the first execution of a man under Sharia took
place in Katsina State. It was also globally condemned.
The
Commentaries…
The
Chief Imam, Ogo Oluwa Central Mosque, Arepo via Ijoko, Ogun State, Alhaji
Al-Imam Bankole,
said implementing the Sharia Law across Nigeria is not detrimental to
Christians or any other religious sect for that matter.
In
his views, since it boils down to a Nigerian issue and efforts must be made to
enable people with conflicting views see that the legal system means no harm to
them.
”It is good (the Sharia
bill) but Nigeria belongs to both Muslims and Christians. There must be mutual
understanding. We should respect other’s views. The Quran says our religions
should not disturb others. Jesus and Prophet Mohammed were not antagonists.
Islam is peace for everybody. So, as far as I am concerned, there is no cause
for alarm or anxiety over the issue.”
But
Nigerian inventor and scientist, Dr. Philip Emeagwali, in one interview granted
in the early days of Sharia, sees no reason whatsoever for attempting to
entrench it in the nation’s social fibre.
“It
is discriminatory and unconstitutional to have a different set of laws for
different sexes, ethnic and religious groups. Under Sharia, women and
non-Muslims cannot testify in cases involving Muslims. The relatives of a
Muslim murder victim can demand the life of the murderer but the relatives of a
non-Muslim cannot make a similar demand.
“The
Sharia law is divinely ordained and unchangeable. This takes Nigeria back to
the 7th century, when Prophet Mohammed founded Islam. Since Muslim women must
always wear full-length dresses and have their faces covered, they cannot
participate in the Olympic Games.
”The human life is sacred
and it is inhumane and barbaric to amputate the arm of your neighbor for
stealing your chicken. The state passed an unconstitutional law which is
automatically null and void.
“The
Bible teaches: ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and
to God the things which are God’s’, which in other words, urges the separation
of state and religion. On the other hand, Islam is total religion that does not
have provisions for the separation of state and religion.”
The
Sharia Law debate may be another exercise in futility. Any attempt that tends
to give Sharia undue place in the constitution will be resisted, the very
reason it is already generating ill-feelings in the legislature, where it
emanated in the first place. Therefore, it is one debate that should not have
come up in the first place.
THISDAY
No comments:
Post a Comment