Nigeria: A Secular State?
The Colonial Engineering and The Post-Colonial Dynamics of the Nigerian State
The Fulani Jihād of 1804 and the Church missions of the 1840s are significant events that transformed the geographical landscape, traditional configurations, and the socioeconomic arteries of what later became Nigeria. While the former established the Sokoto Caliphate in the Hausa states which later became part of northern Nigeria today, the latter introduced missionary Christianity and Western education which eventually achieved a mainstay in southern Nigeria as traditional religions waned. It is these north-south religious frontiers that Alhassan P. Ibrahim believes to represent ‘[...] the first wave of colonization (the Arab Islamic colonization), and [...] the European wave of colonization’ respectively. The binary religious frontiers of the country, as Charles Ekpo would argue, ‘has been the origin of the dialectic between what was designed to be a secular state and that which became a theocratic diarchy.’
Though absent in words, the secular status of Nigeria from 1960-1966 was without question because both the 1960 and 1963 constitutions, as Ogbu notes, ‘did not make provision for Shari’a Court of Appeal, even though the court existed in the Northern region.’ The court merely existed in the North in a grassroots context with no constitutional backing. The core North’s caliphate system maintained by the British to forestall excessive costs made the entrenchment of the Shari’a court imperative. It was in the colonial usefulness of such a system that British concession on Shari’a was grounded. Adept with diplomatic gusto, the British blocked a constitutional provision for Shari’a in the 1960 Constitution. This was a calculated move, perhaps to deflect suspicion from Christians in the South because to have allowed such would have meant providing similar provisions for Canon Law in Southern Nigeria. Again, such provision, as purveyors of the constitutions observed, would make the country descend into divergent jurisprudences and southern fears of Islamization.
The 1979 Constitution took a U-turn. Shari’a Court of Appeal received constitutional backing. This move somewhat put a start to debates about the secular status of Nigeria. It should be recalled that the question of Nigeria’s secularity was tabled during the constituent assembly organized during the Obasanjo regime. It was there that constitutional provision for the Shari’a Court of Appeal was achieved. The insertion of ‘secularity’ in the 1979 Constitution was a great bone of contention between northern Muslims and southern Christians. It was reported that Muslims argued that the notion of secularity was Judeo-Christian in origin while Christians argued that it merely guaranteed the safety for Nigerians to practise any religion of their choice. Both would agree on the prohibition of State Religion as later promulgated in Section 10, that “The Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State Religion.” Supposedly, with the provision of this section, all debates concerning secularity and the posturing of Islam as state religion were laid to rest. Meanwhile, debates still continue.
In 1999, another constitution arrived. The 1999 Constitution was mostly culled from the 1979 constitution of the Second Republic. This latest one re-asserted the constitutional backing for Shari’a Court of Appeal. And it is this re-assertion and ‘pride of place’ that Osita Ogbu has pointed out, that ‘Sections 262 and 277 of the constitution […] empower any state that wants to establish a Shari’a Court of Appeal and Section 237 (2) (b) requiring that not less than three members of the court of appeal should be persons learned in Islamic personal law.’ This same constitution which gives the Shari’a option to any state that requires it, also maintained, that ‘if Section 10 (which prohibits adoption of state religion) of the constitution is read with other sections that enshrine human rights (Section 38[1]), supremacy of the constitution (Section 1) and sovereignty of the people and the nation (Section 14[2](a))' then as Ogbu opines, 'The plausible conclusion is that Nigeria is a secular state.’
One would argue that Section 10 was fair enough in putting all religious pride and injury at bay. However, the caveats and injunctions backing the adoption of Shari’a by any state are difficult to hold down clearly without confusing. Does ‘by any state’ mean whenever Muslims become the majority in any state? Or does it mean when the Muslims are in the ‘minority’? Perhaps aggrieved by this complicated phrase, Christian Ele queried why the 1999 Constitution ‘[…] mentioned Sharia 73 times, Grand Khadi 54 times, Islam 28 times, Muslims 10 times and there is no single mention of Christ, Christian, Christianity or Church…’ More over, where is the place of traditionalists in all this? If Ele is complaining about the absence of anything Christian in the constitution, what about indigenous religions that have hosted Christianity (his religion) and Islam since their arrival?
During the interview, Tunde Odunlade, aged 67, did not allow for a long discourse on Nigeria’s secular status. He declared Nigeria to be multi-religious with Christianity, Islam, and Traditional predominant. Asked if he considers Nigeria a secular state, he says “I think that’s what it is. It’s not a consideration. It’s what it is.” Mrs Bolanle Awe, a professor of history, and retired lecturer, aged 90, also agrees that Nigeria is a secular state. She declares, “Personally, I would regard the country as a secular state [.] There are people of different religions; there are also people who don’t care about religion. You are left to believe whatever is right and good.”
Going by their affirmations of Nigeria’s secular status, it is rather illuminating that both Odunlade and Awe did not use the 1999 constitution as the framework of their opinions. In light of this, one could argue that pinning a secular state status on Nigeria can be perplexing, especially when the Nigerian constitution by caprice and Nigeria’s various locales are all at once ‘secular, partially secular, non-secular and even multi-religious.’