Sharia Panel Controversy Escalates In South-West Nigeria

Sharia Panel Debate Intensifies in South-West Nigeria

Tensions have risen across South-West Nigeria following the proposed establishment of Sharia panels in Oyo State. While Muslim leaders emphasize their constitutional right to religious self-determination, some non-Muslim groups have raised concerns over the broader implications of these panels on societal cohesion.

The core issue revolves around the difference between Sharia panels and Sharia courts. Sharia panels, as explained by Muslim leaders, are arbitration committees focusing on civil matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and contract disputes among Muslims. On the other hand, Sharia courts are part of the judicial system in the predominantly Muslim Northern Nigeria.

Origins of the Controversy

The situation escalated when the Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria (SCSN) announced plans to establish a Sharia panel in Oyo town, Oyo State. However, after public backlash, the council indefinitely postponed the panel’s inauguration.

Key Muslim figures such as the Basorun of Oyoland, High Chief Yusuf Akinade Olayinka, and Alhaji Tajudeen Abdul-Hammed Kamorise were expected at the ceremony. Despite the suspension, a non-Muslim group, Yoruba Council Worldwide, threatened legal action unless the initiative was abandoned entirely.

Defense from Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC)

Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) refuted the opposition, clarifying that the Sharia panel is not a judicial court but a voluntary arbitration body. The organization stated that such panels have been operational in the South-West since 2003, operating from mosques without any government funding or enforcement powers.

According to MURIC’s Director, Prof. Ishaq Akintola:

“What Oyo Muslims plan to inaugurate is not a Sharia court but a Sharia panel. Panels have existed for years in Yorubaland, serving as arbitration forums for Muslims without enforcing decisions or compelling non-Muslims to participate.”

Historical Context and Legal Standing

Historically, Sharia arbitration has been part of Yorubaland. Oba Abibu Olagunju of Ede employed Qadi Sindiku for a Sharia court as far back as 1913, while similar structures existed in Iwo and Ikirun. The constitutional framework also allows such practices under Sections 275(1), 276, and 277 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution.

Oyo State Government’s Position

Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde clarified that while religious freedom is protected, the state would not permit any illegal judicial structure. His spokesperson emphasized that the Sharia panel must operate within Nigeria’s legal framework.

Clarification on Sharia Panels and Courts

Legal experts have further explained that a Sharia panel functions as a voluntary arbitration body, while courts are established by law with enforcement powers. Sharia panels cannot force participation, unlike courts of law.

Perspectives and Reactions

Both Muslim and non-Muslim voices remain divided. Some Muslims argue that the panels are necessary to resolve faith-based civil matters, while critics express concerns over potential legal conflicts and societal division.

Critics and legal challengers of the Sharia panel in Nigeria have been accused of baseless opposition, as Sharia law has existed in the country since 1908. The panels operate in mosques and handle civil matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance, and contracts, with no justification for public backlash. Some critics of Islamic financial institutions like Jaiz Bank and Sukuk have also ended up benefiting from them, indicating a lack of understanding rather than legitimate concerns. The Constitution recognizes Islamic law, further solidifying its legitimacy.

Regarding the grievances of South-West Muslims, the Constitution permits states to establish Sharia Courts of Appeal, yet no South-West state has complied due to criticism from non-Muslims. The panels, primarily for arbitration, focus on voluntary participation in civil issues and are seen as a form of freedom of association rather than state intervention. Critics argue the government’s failure to act has left Muslims without proper legal options aligned with their faith.

Optimism remains strong among advocates who believe the establishment of a Sharia Court of Appeal in Lagos and other South-West states is inevitable. Scholars emphasize that the panels serve only as mediation platforms without judicial authority, dismissing fears of a full Sharia law implementation in the region.

Islamic scholars argue Sharia panels already exist in parts of the South-West and operate within the Constitution’s provisions. The panels address civil matters for Muslims who choose to participate, such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody. This limited scope aligns with constitutional protections for religious freedom and arbitration rights.

Opponents, including Christian leaders and some legal experts, claim the panels threaten Nigeria’s secular nature and peaceful coexistence. They argue the Constitution only supports Sharia courts in the North and customary courts in the South, with no legal basis for panels in the South-West unless formalized by state legislation.

Supporters, however, stress that the Sharia panel is not a threat but a peaceful means for Muslims to resolve personal disputes. It already exists in states like Osun and Ekiti without issue and is meant to uphold Islamic values without affecting non-Muslims. They call for dialogue and understanding instead of criticism and legal threats.

Conclusion

The debate on Sharia panels in South-West Nigeria continues to evoke mixed reactions. While some view the panels as a legitimate means of self-governance for Muslims, others fear it could disrupt regional harmony. Clarity on the voluntary and non-enforceable nature of Sharia panels might help balance religious rights with broader societal concerns.