The removal of Imam Dahiru Abubakar in Bauchi for allegedly campaigning for President Tinubu from the mosque raises an important question: If defending a president from the pulpit is political, is condemning him from the same pulpit any less political?
The mosque committee cited concerns about partisan preaching, political gatherings and an alleged attempt to rename the community mosque after Tinubu.
If established, using a shared religious institution for personal political promotion would understandably raise concerns.
However, neutrality requires consistency. Would the same committee take similar action against an imam who regularly condemned political leaders and urged worshippers to reject them?
If the rules apply equally to both sides, the committee’s position is easier to defend. If not, the issue deserves reconsideration.
The mosque must not become a campaign office, but neither should its sanctity become a shield for selective political expression.
Any disciplinary action should also follow proportionate measures.
Lastly, protecting religious institutions and allowing respectful disagreement are not mutually exclusive. A modest society is not one without dissent, but one that manages disagreement fairly, without demonisation or subjectivity.
