By Habeeb Olayinka Lawal*
Introduction – A recent statement attributed to the United States calling for the abolition of Shari’a law in Nigeria has raised understandable concern across the legal and religious landscape. If the report is accurate, it once again reveals how effortlessly foreign governments venture into the internal affairs of sovereign nations, and how often such ventures are made without even a basic grasp of context. It is not merely interference; it is uninformed interference.
There is a simple principle doctors live by: no one prescribes a medicine without first understanding the patient’s history and condition. Anything short of that is malpractice. International diplomacy and legal commentary demand the same caution. Prescribing solutions for Nigeria without understanding our legal history, constitutional design and religious dynamics is reckless—and frequently harmful.
This brings us to the essential question: What exactly is Shari’a law in Nigeria, and why is it constitutionally protected?
Shari’a: A Legally Recognized and Constitutionally Protected Component of Nigeria’s System
Contrary to popular misconceptions, Shari’a is not a foreign import, nor is it a political scheme crafted by northern elites. It is one of Nigeria’s three foundational legal traditions—Common Law, Customary Law and Islamic Law—a fact repeatedly affirmed by the courts.
In Manu v. Muhammad (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 528) 323, the Court of Appeal held that: “The 1979 Constitution has recognised Islamic Law as one of the three legal cultures co-existing in Nigeria.”
Similarly, in Agbebu v. Bawa (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 245) 80, the Court reiterated that: “Islamic law is recognised as one of the three legal cultures co-existing in Nigeria.”
Thus, Shari’a is not an intrusion; it is an indigenous, constitutionally and judiciary-recognised legal tradition, deeply woven into the fabric of Nigerian jurisprudence.
Nigeria Forbids a State Religion—but Protects Religious Freedom
A recurring point in public debates is that Nigeria is a secular State. That is both true and misleading if not properly understood.
Yes, Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution forbids any government from adopting a State religion where it provides: “The Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State Religion.” But the same Constitution, in Section 38, vigorously protects the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the right to manifest that religion “in practice and observance.”
This means:
- The State cannot impose a religion.
- But the State must protect the religious choices and legal systems of citizens where those practices are lawful and voluntary.
Consequently, observing Shari’a is not an act of State religion.
It is the religious practice of millions of Nigerian Muslims, and the Constitution protects their right to govern their affairs, especially personal ones —marriage, inheritance, family matters—by the laws of their faith.
Just as English Common Law evolved from Christian philosophy and ecclesiastical principles, Shari’a is the legal expression of Islamic religious life. If one is permitted and constitutionally preserved, the other cannot be condemned merely because its roots differ from Western norms.
Shari’a Is Limited, Defined and Jurisdictionally Clear
Nigeria’s Constitution is explicit. Sections 260, 262, 275 and 277 provide for Shari’a Courts of Appeal for the FCT and “any State that requires it.” Their jurisdiction is not unrestricted or ambiguous—it is clearly confined to Islamic personal law.
Shari’a in Nigeria covers: marriage, divorce, inheritance, guardianship, legitimacy, waqf (charitable endowments) and related civil matters.
And crucially, Shari’a courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over non-Muslims. This principle can easily be deduced from sections 262 and 277 of the Constitution.
The Court of Appeal, in Usman v. Usman (2003) 11 NWLR (Pt. 830) 109, beautifully captured the nature of Islamic law: “Islamic law is a reasonable and rational law… organic and developmental… humane and comprehensive… It establishes justice for all and sundry.”
Such a system cannot simply be dismissed by foreign voices acquainted neither with its structure nor its constitutional place.
The United States Must Understand Before Prescribing
For any nation—particularly one that operates its own forms of religious arbitration—to call on Nigeria to abolish Shari’a reveals a striking misunderstanding of our constitutional structure and cultural composition. It also exposes an assumption that what was not part of America’s own founding must somehow be inappropriate for others. This is not how global pluralism works, and certainly not how sovereign constitutional orders operate.
The United States itself allows Jewish Beth Din tribunals, Christian ecclesiastical arbitration bodies, and faith-based mediation centres to resolve family and civil disputes under its laws. These mechanisms exist because American citizens are free to order aspects of their lives according to their religious convictions. Yet, paradoxically, the same courtesy it grants its own citizens becomes a point of criticism when Muslims in Nigeria exercise an equivalent constitutional right.
The fact that Islam—and therefore Shari’a—was not part of the American legal foundation does not make it illegitimate elsewhere, especially in a country like Nigeria where a significant portion of the population is Muslim and where Islamic law has been part of the legal landscape for centuries. Nations are shaped by their histories, their religions, their cultures and their constitutional choices. The United States chose the path of English common law rooted in Christian moral philosophy. Nigeria, by contrast, evolved a plural system accommodating Common Law, Customary Law and Islamic Law—each serving a distinct segment of its diverse population.
To assume that only the American experience is valid, and that all other nations must conform to it, is not leadership. It is a form of intellectual and cultural overreach that disregards the sovereignty and identity of others.
Nigeria’s constitutional recognition of Shari’a is not an anomaly; it is a reflection of who we are. And no foreign nation—no matter how influential—can legitimately prescribe a cure for a constitutional design it has never taken the time to understand.
Conclusion
Shari’a is not a threat to Nigerian unity, nor is it a constitutional accident. It is a legally entrenched component of Nigeria’s identity—one that co-exists with Common Law and Customary Law.
Calls for its abolition are not rooted in Nigerian constitutionalism, legal reasoning or historical understanding. They stem from external misinterpretations that disregard our legal evolution and the lived realities of millions of citizens.
Nigeria must continue to uphold the pluralistic justice system that reflects its diversity and honours its Constitution. Shari’a is part of that system—and no amount of foreign misunderstanding can alter that fact.
* H. O. Lawal, ESQ is a legal practitioner based in Abuja. He can be reached via: 08169894541 or olayinkalawah@gmail.com
