A bill that seeks to expand the influence of Sharia law in the nation has sparked a fierce debate in the Nigerian House of Representatives.
The bill was rejected when it was put to a voice vote by Ben Kalu, the deputy speaker, who presided over plenary.
Debating the bill ignited a wave of heated exchanges and firm resistance from honourable members for and against the proposal.
Sponsored on Thursday by the member representing Misau/Dambam Federal Constituency, Bauchi State, Aliyu Misau, it sought to amend sections 24, 262, 277, and 288 of the 1999 constitution by removing the word “personal” wherever it is mentioned from the section, allowing “Islamic law” to stand on its own.
Section 262 (1) of the constitution provides “The Sharia Court of Appeal shall, in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, exercise such appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic personal law.”
Leading the debate on the general principles of the bill, the Peoples Democratic Party lawmaker noted that the inclusion of the word “personal” after “Islamic” restricts its application, particularly in Islamic commercial laws.
“The 1999 constitution provided for personal Islamic law. The constitution did not envisage the dynamism and development that may come into the country. For instance, in 2003, the constitution did not foresee the advent of Jaiz Bank which operates under commercial Islamic law.”
Some members warned that such a move could endanger Nigeria’s unity, given its diversity in religious beliefs.
One of the opposing lawmakers passionately asserted, “You cannot Islamize Nigeria. Our nation’s constitution provides for freedom of religion, and we cannot set a precedent that undermines the country’s secular framework.” The lawmaker’s remarks were met with applause from like-minded representatives who argued that the proposal, if passed, would violate Nigeria’s commitment to equal representation for all religions.
Amid the heated exchanges, proponents of the bill argued that it simply aims to provide options for states with predominantly Muslim populations, emphasizing that it would not infringe upon other religious practices. Supporters called for an open-minded approach to the bill, noting that the flexibility to adapt governance based on regional preferences could promote harmony.
Ultimately, the bill was rejected when it was put to a voice vote by Ben Kalu, the deputy speaker, who presided over plenary.
