By DAYO ADESULU
This article highlights the contentious debate surrounding the establishment of shari’a arbitration panels in the South-Western states of Nigeria. The conflict stems from divergent perspectives on the panel’s purpose, legality, and cultural implications. Here are the key takeaways from the discourse:
1. The Shari’a Arbitration Panel’s Purpose
- Proponents of the panels emphasize that these are not Shari’a courts but arbitration bodies designed to mediate civil matters among consenting Muslims. These include disputes over inheritance, marriage, and other personal issues governed by Islamic law.
- Supporters argue that the panels are voluntary, aligned with constitutional rights, and are not imposing on non-Muslims or even unwilling Muslims.
2. Opposition Arguments
- Critics highlight concerns over the potential erosion of the region’s secular traditions and cultural harmony. They fear it could lead to divisiveness, religious bias, or even be seen as an effort to replicate Northern Nigeria’s Shari’a judicial framework in a region historically characterized by religious pluralism.
- Some Christian leaders and traditional rulers argue against the panels, citing the absence of full religious freedom for Christians in Northern Nigeria as a point of contention. They perceive this move as a double standard.
3. Legal and Constitutional Grounds
- Article 38 of the Nigerian Constitution grants freedom of religion, allowing individuals to practice and manage religious laws voluntarily within their faith.
- Section 278 of the Constitution explicitly provides for Shari’a courts to adjudicate Muslim Personal Law. However, there is debate over whether such provisions should be implemented in the South-West, given the existing customary and statutory legal structures.
4. Cultural Concerns
- Yoruba society, known for its blend of Christian, Muslim, and traditional belief systems within families, raises concerns that introducing religiously exclusive frameworks could disrupt longstanding social cohesion.
- Traditional rulers and cultural groups argue for the preservation of secularism to maintain harmony in the region.
5. Broader Implications
- The debate reflects broader issues of religious tolerance, interfaith relationships, and the balance between constitutional rights and regional cultural identity.
- Some fear that granting such panels formal recognition could open doors to further religious polarization, while others argue it simply upholds Muslims’ rights to self-determination in personal matters.
Conclusion
The challenge lies in striking a balance between respecting religious freedoms and maintaining the cultural and social unity of the South-West. Dialogue among all stakeholders—government officials, religious leaders, and cultural custodians—will be crucial in resolving the matter amicably.
