Does Nigeria need other courts apart from the courts established and recognized by the constitution? Specifically, does Nigeria require religious courts? While many in the country agree that such courts have become necessary, many more are up in arms against it. This debates, as needless as they are, come at a time when Nigerians should be dissipating their energies towards driving that which builds rather than tears down.
In 1998, as Nigeria sought to escape the terrible talons of military rule, there was an overarching need for a new constitution, one which crystallized the dreams and aspirations of Nigerians, while providing a robust platform for the country as it embarked on a new phase.
The consultations were as extensive as the conferences were intensive. At the end of the day, the result was the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It came with many shortcomings because despite agreeing to relinquish power and the rather cosmetic overtures to civilian aspirations, the military ensured that the constitution bore a heavy military stamp.
The military may argue that no constitution is perfect and that the immediate aim was to keep Nigeria together and focused on the journey of returning to democracy, but the result was that Nigeria ended up with a deeply flawed constitution, one which has surprisingly served Nigeria relatively well since then.
There have been amendments to the constitution to reflect the aspirations of Nigerians. But the unspoken truth is that the defects in the constitution are incurable by cosmetic procedures. Only an open-heart procedure can cure the defects in the constitution.
The constitution allows for freedom of religion, worship, expression, and association. These rights find expressions in different institutions licensed, approved and protected by the constitution.
It is still on the constitution that those who seek to establish Sharia courts in the Southwest are anchoring their arguments. According to them, since the constitution allows freedom of worship, they are also free to, without discrimination, establish courts that lend even greater expression to their freedom of worship.
Their argument may not necessarily be flawed. But what it surely is divisive, especially as it has served to dredge up ancient fault lines between the North and the South.
Just like there are Christians all over Nigeria, there are Muslims all over Nigeria too. Nigerian Muslims are predominantly in the North of the country. But outside the North, it is the Southwest that has the highest number of Muslims. Bound by one faith, they agree on so many prescripts, even if not in the practice of those prescripts. One point of especially sharp divergence is on the interpretation and implementation of Sharia law which has come to be associated with extreme forms of punishment in Nigeria.
It Is this ultra-orthodox interpretation of Islam backed by extreme forms of punishment that has made many people wary of sharia law. In the early 2000s, some states in the North implemented Sharia law which resulted in some notorious cases of extreme forms of punishment. It is these forms of extreme punishment permissible under sharia law that many people cannot imagine for the people of the Southwest.
Religion will necessarily be false unless its adherents accept it wholeheartedly. The test of whether to establish Sharia courts in the Southwest lies in whether the majority of Muslims there want it, are ready to accept it, and be subject to it.
The furor since the first move to introduce the courts was made suggests stiff opposition. The red flags indicate that in the circumstances, it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.
Ike Willie-Nwobu,
