The recent statement credited to former Minister of Communications, Adebayo Shittu, suggesting that he would “introduce Sharia law” in Oyo State if elected governor and if the people so demand, calls for immediate constitutional clarification.
With due respect, this position is legally misconceived and constitutionally misleading.
First, Sharia law is not new to Nigeria. The 1999 Constitution (as amended) already recognizes and provides for the operation of Sharia, particularly in the area of Islamic personal law, through the establishment of Sharia Courts of Appeal under Sections 260–264 and 275–279. Therefore, there is nothing novel to “introduce” in that regard.
The real issue often left unsaid—is the expansion of Sharia into the criminal justice system, as has been attempted in some Northern states. It is this form of Sharia, not personal law, that raises serious constitutional concerns.
Nigeria is, by virtue of Section 10 of the Constitution, a secular state. No government—federal or state—has the constitutional authority to adopt or promote any religion as state policy. The introduction of a religious-based criminal justice system, no matter how it is framed, risks violating this fundamental provision.
Furthermore, criminal law is not a matter of private choice or religious preference. It is a sovereign function of the state, applied uniformly to all citizens. The suggestion that a state can operate a “voluntary” religious criminal system applicable only to a segment of the population is legally untenable. Criminal justice cannot be compartmentalized along religious lines without undermining the principles of equality before the law (Section 42) and fair hearing (Section 36).
Additionally, certain punishments associated with criminal Sharia raise serious issues under Section 34 of the Constitution, which guarantees the dignity of the human person and prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.
Oyo State, and indeed the South-West, has long been a model of religious tolerance, coexistence, and constitutional order. Introducing divisive legal constructs under the guise of religious freedom risks destabilizing this fragile balance.
Let it be stated clearly:
Freedom of religion, as guaranteed under Section 38 of the Constitution, allows individuals to practice their faith not to impose a parallel criminal justice system rooted in religious doctrine.
Nigeria’s unity and stability depend on strict adherence to constitutional supremacy, not political experimentation with sensitive religious issues.
This debate must therefore be properly situated:
It is not about denying any group their religious rights it is about preserving the constitutional framework that binds us all as one nation under the rule of law.