By MUHAMMED DANBABA
Divisions Emerge as Lawmakers Debate the Scope of Islamic Law
In a significant legislative development, the House of Representatives on Thursday rejected a bill aimed at expanding the application of Islamic law within the 1999 Constitution. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Aliyu Missau, sought to amend specific sections of the constitution by removing the term “personal” wherever “Islamic law” is mentioned, thereby allowing for a broader interpretation of Islamic law beyond personal matters.
Proposed Amendments and Rationale
The proposed amendments targeted sections 24, 262, 277, and 288 of the constitution. Specifically, Section 262 (1) states that the Sharia Court of Appeal shall exercise appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic personal law. Missau argued that the inclusion of the word “personal” imposes limitations on the applicability of Islamic law, particularly in areas such as Islamic commercial law.
He cited the evolution of Islamic financial institutions, such as Jaiz Bank, as examples of how the existing constitutional framework does not account for the dynamism and developments in the country’s legal landscape. Missau contended that eliminating the “personal” designation would facilitate the growth and application of Islamic commercial law and Islamic international law.
Legislative Debate: Regional Divisions
The debate surrounding the bill highlighted a clear divide among lawmakers, with northern representatives largely supporting the amendment while their southern counterparts opposed it.
Solomon Bob, a representative from Rivers State, expressed concerns that removing the word “personal” would broaden the implications of Islamic law beyond what was originally intended by the framers of the constitution. He emphasized the importance of retaining the word to maintain the original scope of Islamic law as it pertains to personal matters.
Supporters of the bill, such as Abdul Hakeem Ado from Kano, argued for the necessity of sustaining Islamic commercial law within the legal framework. Other proponents included Saidu Abdullahi from Niger State and Ahmed Satomi from Borno.
Conversely, representatives like Jonathan Gaza from Nasarawa, Ademorin Kuye from Lagos, and Awaji-Inombek Abiante from Rivers voiced strong opposition. Bamidele Salam from Osun argued that issues of religion should remain a matter of personal preference, citing Nigeria’s status as a secular state. He referenced historical sensitivities surrounding the application of Islamic law during previous constitutional assemblies and warned against changes that could exacerbate divisions within the country.
Outcome of the Vote
After extensive debate, the bill was put to a voice vote by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu, who presided over the session. The proposal was ultimately rejected, reflecting the complexities and sensitivities surrounding the integration of religious laws within Nigeria’s secular constitution.
Conclusion: Navigating Constitutional Challenges
The rejection of the bill underscores the ongoing challenges Nigeria faces in balancing religious considerations with its secular framework. As lawmakers navigate these complex issues, the need for dialogue and understanding across regional and religious lines remains critical for fostering unity in a diverse nation. The discussions surrounding this bill may continue to influence future legislative efforts and the broader discourse on the role of religion in Nigeria’s legal system.
