Religious Freedom or Secular Conflict? Navigating Shari’a Arbitration in a Diverse Nigeria

By DAYO ADESULU

This piece sheds light on the ongoing debate surrounding the establishment of shari’a arbitration panels in the south-western states of Nigeria. The issue has sparked sharp divisions between Muslim leaders advocating for the panels and opposing voices, including Christian leaders, traditional rulers, and state governments, who cite concerns about unity, secularism, and legality.

Key Points:

1. Muslim Leaders’ Perspective:
   Muslim leaders, including Dr. Hammed Bakare and Dr. Rafiu Bello, emphasise that the panels are arbitration bodies designed for willing Muslims to resolve personal disputes (e.g., marriage, inheritance) based on Islamic principles. They argue the panels do not function as courts, are voluntary, and align with constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.
2. Opposition from State Authorities and Traditional Rulers:
   Some state governments and traditional rulers, such as the Ewi of Ado Ekiti, have opposed the panels, citing potential threats to peaceful coexistence and existing legal structures. They argue that disputes are already handled effectively under customary and civil laws without religious arbitration.
3. Christian Leaders’ Concerns:
   Christian leaders, including the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN), strongly oppose the panels, arguing that they disrupt secularism. They also point out restrictions faced by Christians in predominantly Muslim northern states as grounds for rejecting the panels in the South-West.
4. Cultural Resistance in the Southwest:
   Groups like the Yoruba Cultural Renaissance Advocates and Afenifere have expressed concerns that introducing shari’a law could disrupt the region’s secular and religiously pluralistic culture. They highlight the deeply intertwined nature of Yoruba families, where Christians, Muslims, and traditional believers coexist.
5. Precedent and Legal Context:
   Proponents argue that shari’a arbitration panels have operated in parts of the South-West (e.g., Lagos, Osun) for decades without controversy. They cite constitutional provisions that permit Shari’a courts to handle personal law matters among Muslims.

Broader Implications:

This debate highlights the delicate balance between religious freedom, secular governance, and cultural sensitivity in a pluralistic society. While proponents of the panels assert their constitutional right to religious arbitration, critics fear the panels could undermine national unity and the secularity of governance.

The tension surrounding the establishment of shari’a arbitration panels in south-west Nigeria highlights a complex intersection of constitutional rights, cultural diversity, and religious coexistence. Analysing the constitutional framework and possible resolutions to this conflict requires a balanced consideration of legal provisions, societal dynamics, and cultural sensibilities.

1. Constitutional Framework

The Nigerian Constitution provides for a secular state while recognising the rights of religious groups to practice their faith. The following provisions are relevant:

Freedom of Religion (Section 38)

• Guaranteed Rights: Every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including freedom to manifest and practice their religion.
• Interpretation: The establishment of shari’a arbitration panels aligns with Muslims’ constitutional right to organise their affairs in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution

• Recognition of Arbitration Panels: The constitution and existing laws in Nigeria recognise arbitration as a legitimate means of resolving disputes. Religious bodies, including churches and Islamic organisations, can operate arbitration panels for members who consent.
• Non-Binding Nature: Such panels do not replace statutory courts and apply only to willing participants.

Jurisdiction of Shari’a Courts (Section 277–280)

• Regional Applicability: Shari’a courts are recognised under the Constitution but primarily in states with significant Muslim populations in the North.
• Scope: Shari’a courts have jurisdiction over Muslim personal law, including marriage, inheritance, and custody, for consenting Muslims.
• South-West Context: While shari’a courts are constitutionally permissible, their establishment in the South-West faces cultural and demographic challenges, given the region’s religious diversity and historical coexistence.

Secularism and Unity (Section 10)

• Prohibition of State Religion: The Constitution prohibits any state from adopting a particular religion as its official religion. This reinforces Nigeria’s secular identity.
• Interpretation: Introducing Sharia courts or panels in regions with diverse populations may raise concerns about perceived favouritism or erosion of secularism.

2. Key Points of Contention

Opposition from Non-Muslims

• Many Christians and traditionalists view the establishment of shari’a panels as an infringement on the secular nature of governance and fear potential religious domination.
• There is concern that allowing shari’a panels might set a precedent for increased religious entrenchment in governance.

Internal Cultural Dynamics

• South-West Nigeria is known for its religious tolerance and interfaith harmony. Critics argue that introducing shari’a panels could disrupt this delicate balance by imposing a divisive system.

Miscommunication and Perception

• Many opponents conflate Shari’a arbitration panels with Shari’a courts. Clarifying that these panels are voluntary arbitration bodies, not state-imposed judicial systems, is crucial.

Legal Framework and Consent

• The opposition stems partly from fears that shari’a arbitration might bypass existing customary and statutory legal systems. However, the panels only apply to Muslims who voluntarily seek adjudication.

3. Possible Resolutions

To resolve this conflict, the following steps could help balance constitutional rights, cultural sensitivity, and peaceful coexistence:

Clarification of Roles and Functions

• Public Education: The Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (SCIA) and shari’a panel proponents should engage in public awareness campaigns to clarify that the panels are voluntary arbitration systems, not formal courts.
• Emphasise Voluntariness: Stress that participation is restricted to willing Muslims, ensuring no imposition on non-Muslims or dissenting Muslims.

Legal Recognition of Panels as Arbitration Bodies

• Codify in State Laws: State governments could enact laws recognising Shari’a panels as arbitration bodies operating under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This will formalise their existence without equating them to courts.
• Limit Jurisdiction: Clearly outline the jurisdiction of such panels, restricting them to personal law matters like marriage, inheritance, and family disputes for Muslims.

Interfaith Dialogue

• Collaboration with Religious Leaders: Engage Christian, traditional, and Muslim leaders in dialogue to foster understanding and mitigate tensions.
• Cultural Sensitivity: Acknowledge the region’s interfaith harmony and ensure that religious practices do not undermine secular governance or marginalise minority groups.

Strengthening Secular Legal Framework

• Enhance Customary Courts: Improve the efficiency and accessibility of existing customary and statutory courts to address grievances across religious groups.
• Neutral Arbitration Mechanisms: Introduce state-supported neutral arbitration bodies for interfaith disputes, ensuring that religious biases do not influence rulings.

Constitutional Review

• South-West Shari’a Court Debate: A constitutional review or legal amendment may be necessary to address the South-West context explicitly, preventing ambiguity around the establishment of religious-based courts in diverse regions.

Respect for Community Decisions

• Local Leadership Input: Traditional rulers and local community leaders should play a key role in deciding whether such panels are appropriate for their areas, ensuring grassroots involvement.
• Avoid Imposition: Avoid unilateral establishment of shari’a panels in communities where resistance is high, prioritising coexistence over legal entitlement.

4. Conclusion

The conflict over shari’a arbitration panels in southwest Nigeria underscores the delicate balance between religious freedom and secularism. A resolution requires a nuanced approach that respects constitutional rights while fostering interfaith harmony and protecting cultural diversity. Transparency, dialogue, and adherence to the principles of voluntariness and equality will be essential in ensuring peaceful coexistence and preventing further polarisation.