Christian and Muslim leaders in the South-Western states of Nigeria are in a heated dispute over the proposed establishment of Shari’a arbitration panels.
The panels, aimed at resolving personal and marital disputes among the Muslim community in Ogun, Osun, Ondo, Ekiti, Oyo, and Lagos states, have sparked controversy, with both religious and political leaders offering sharply divergent views.
The Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs has been pushing for the creation of these Shari’a arbitration panels, which would provide a platform for Muslims to resolve issues based on Islamic principles.
Despite strong opposition from various quarters, the council insists the panels will proceed as planned.
Dr. Hammed Bakare, President of the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs in Ekiti State, and Dr. Rafiu Bello, Chairman of the Shari’a Committee of Oyoland, reaffirmed that the panels would be inaugurated despite protests.
They said that the panels are not courts but voluntary arbitration mechanisms for Muslims to settle disputes, such as those related to marriage and inheritance, according to Islamic teachings.
“The panel is an arbitration that we established for ourselves, Muslims, and not even compulsory for all Muslims,” Bakare explained. “It’s just part of our way of worship, to do things according to the dictates of the Almighty God.”
However, the panels have faced significant resistance. The Ekiti State government, supported by local monarchs, has expressed opposition.
Dayo Apata, the state’s Commissioner for Justice, argued that the existing legal framework, which includes the Customary Court and High Court, is sufficient to handle matters related to Islamic, Christian, and traditional practices without causing disruption.
Similarly, Oba Adeyemo Adejugbe, the Ewi of Ado Ekiti, called for the dissolution of the Shari’a panel, stating that its existence could disturb the peaceful coexistence of the community.
Christian leaders, including Pastor Joshua Opayinka of the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN) in Ondo State, have also voiced strong objections.
Opayinka called the proposal for a Shari’a court in the South-West “an aberration,” arguing that such courts could only be viable in the northern part of Nigeria, where Muslims are in the majority.
“We have been marginalised in the north, and now they want to impose this on us in the South-West,” Opayinka said. “It’s not possible here.”
The Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, also weighed in, criticising the push for religious law in the region.
Abagun Kole Omololu, Organising Secretary of Afenifere, warned that the introduction of Sharia law would disrupt the cultural and social fabric of the South-West, which has historically been characterised by religious diversity and harmony.
“The Yoruba want development, not religious bigotry. We are a unique and homogeneous race, and what binds us together is our tradition, not religion,” Omololu said.
Despite the opposition, proponents of the panels maintain that the initiative is a constitutional right for Muslims and is rooted in Islamic practice.
They argue that the Nigerian Constitution guarantees religious freedom, and the panels are meant to provide a platform for Muslims to resolve personal issues within their faith.
“We are not forcing anyone. It is for Muslims who are willing to go to the panel. If you are not willing, nobody will force you,” Dr. Bello stated.
Meanwhile, in Osun State, where a Shari’a arbitration panel has been operating for nearly two decades, the debate continues to stir controversy.
Mallam AbulGaniy Ezra, the State Coordinator for the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, expressed hope that Governor Ademola Adeleke would eventually support the transition of the arbitration panel into a full-fledged Shari’a court.
However, he noted that this could only happen through mutual understanding and in a way that does not threaten peace in the state.
With the issue continuing to divide opinion, Muslim leaders across the region are determined to press forward with their plans, while religious and political opponents are calling for dialogue to ensure that any development respects the diverse cultural and religious landscape of the South-West.
As the debate unfolds, the fate of the Shari’a arbitration panels in the South-West remains uncertain, with both sides holding firm to their positions.
