Osun State: In Defence of Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola

PDP + CAN = OPPOSITION

Osun State: In Defence of Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola

By Wale Adedayo

The few months spent as a student of The Redeemed Bible College (RCCG Area Headquarters, Ita Elewa, Ikorodu, Lagos State) in 2004 taught me a few things about checking for facts beyond what journalism teaches. It could mean all the difference in spiritual warfare matters. This is equally important, as I have since come to learn, in many areas of life as well. Due to that well-enriching programme, it was within a month of being part of the MA (Theology) class I almost completed my house in Ikorodu, Lagos State which son of man had abandoned since 2001. But that is a story for another day, soon.

A number of friends have either joined a lynch-mob trying desperately to crucify Osun State Governor, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, or kept a measured distance as they may not want to be ‘stained’ by allegations of religious bias directed at a leader, who is expected to be neutral given his position as father to all. Aregbesola, according to the opposition politicians, who initiated the current campaign a few years back, is an Islamic extremist bent on foisting his religion on Osun State. They also claim the governor initiated the wearing of Hijab in Osun State schools.

Apart from the two allegations above, there are claims the man has not done anything worthwhile to justify his years as a sitting governor. They believe everything positive about Aregbesola is being hyped. A senior figure in Nigeria’s pro-democracy movement even wrote on a WhatsApp forum a few days ago that all the schools the governor built in Osun State have been overtaken by weeds as students are not there at all. Of course, this friend has sympathy for failed gubernatorial candidate of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Senator Iyiola Omisore. Thus, his argument, despite the untruths it contains, is understandable.

But this piece will not go into the many projects already executed by Aregbesola despite the paucity of funds in a state that is largely a civil service one. It is my intention to shine some light on the Hijab-wearing controversy that the Osun State chapter of Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) is being used to push by its underwater drummers. Unfortunately, they have succeeded in pulling the wool over the eyes of many by carefully concealing facts that would have exposed the supposed Christian group as pawns in the hands of failed politicians desperate to get back to reckoning as another round of election approaches in Osun State.

Fact 1: The schools which CAN is claiming belong to its members are actually public schools, having been taken over by the Western State Government in 1975. The schools belong to the Osun State Government today, being one of the states constituting the old Western State. But unlike Northern Nigeria, where such schools had their names changed, probably to reflect the new ownership, Western State did not remove the original names. For instance, late Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, went to St. John’s College, Kaduna. The school has since been renamed Rimi College, Kaduna, because it is now a public institution. That the names, such as Baptist High School, Iwo, are being retained does not make the schools that of the original owners. They are now government properties, a fact that Osun State CAN did not disclose.

The Administration of former Osun State Governor, Prince Olagunsoye Oyinlola, gave further teeth to this policy with its “Directives of the state government” in 2004 concerning Education Policy in the state, published by the Ministry of Education. Article 8 of the 2004 directives states clearly that, “there are no mission schools presently in Osun State as all schools have been taken over by government in 1975.” Osun State CAN knew about this, but kept the fact from public view.

Fact 2: The insidious propaganda initiated by Osun State’s failed politicians listed Aregbesola as the initiator of Hijab in schools. This has been the campaign slogan of Osun State CAN and its supporters. But a discerning mind would have discovered either through court papers or quality media reports that this is a fallacy being propagated by perfidious persons to gain political advantage. In a detailed report by ThisDay newspaper’s Bureau Chief in Osogbo, Yinka Kolawole, on 4 June 2016, the journalist wrote, among others, that,

“The Osun State Muslim Community on February 14, 2013, dragged the state government to the court, seeking an order of the court to allow female Muslim students enjoy their fundamental rights by granting them order to use hijab in public schools. The suit which was directly instituted against the state government, was also joined as respondents, the state Commissioner for Education, Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice.

“But, the Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN, its chairman and others, voluntarily joined as respondents. The applicants, in a 44 paragraph affidavit in support of their motion, applied for the enforcement of their fundamental rights pursuant to Sections 38 and 42 of the constitution. The applicants through their lead-counsel, Kazeem Odedeji, told the court that female Muslim students were being harassed by the fourth and fifth respondents, insisting that such was a clear discrimination and infringement on their fundamental rights.

“Odedeji who premised his argument on a decision of a Court of Appeal, Ilorin, between the Provost, College of Education and one Basirat Saliu, noted that female Catholics wear hijab, while Mary, the mother of Jesus always appear on picture with hijab on her head. Odedeji also explained that his prayer was to allow female Muslim students wear hijab in some schools where they were being denied, noting that they had been wearing it in accordance with the 2004 Directives of the state government.”

Stemming from this newspaper report, which was based on court records, the facts established include proof that Aregbesola did not initiate the wearing of Hijab in any form. It was the Osun State Muslim Community, relying on Oyinlola’s 2004 policy, that initiated a suit as far back as 2013 to ensure that its female children are allowed to wear Hijab in public schools, not mission schools. This record also displayed proof that Aregbesola’s administration initially sought to restrain this, thus the harassment mentioned by the petitioners. These facts were hidden from the public by Osun State CAN, which should have displayed exemplary conduct through its leaders by stating clearly for all to know that the schools in question are not Christian/Mission ones, but actually belong to the Osun State Government.

For me, two options are open to Osun State CAN, if partisan politics will allow its leadership to faithfully serve the groups it claims to represent. The first, arising from the victory of Osun State Muslim Community at the court, is to approach a superior court in order to overturn an undesirable judgment. This is a far better approach than the use of children in resorting to self-help against the judgment of a court. The second option, which, to me, is even better than an appeal is to work on lobbying the Osun State Government into releasing the contentious schools back to their original owners. Some states have done this already. But it was not at the instance of Government. Powerful lobbyists went to work on behalf of cerebral Christian groups, who knew their onions. Osun State CAN surely have educated and well-experienced members among its ranks. Instead of the current Jankara approach, which will certainly not yield any fruitful result, why not borrow a leaf from the success stories of others to get what they want?

But, there is a very sad aspect to the whole drama. Religion of any kind forbids lying and lending yourself to be used to aid liars. An image of public schools being turned over to Muslims have been painted in the minds of many by Osun State CAN. From the facts above, that is a lie from the pit of hell! There are no mission schools among the ones in contention in Osun State today. They are all public schools, and have been so since 1975. Osun State CAN lied, lent itself to be used by politicians for lies and deceived a lot of people in the process. The conscience of these so-called men of God should worry them that they are doing everything possible to ridicule the name of God, who admonished them through the Holy Bible not to lie or lend themselves to be used by liars.

A few words to the mischief makers desperately doing everything possible to paint the Osun State Governor as a covet extremist. These are mainly from my posts to Facebook. Aregbesola is passionate about his religion, Islam. But he is one moderate Muslim that many erroneously see as a fundamentalist. His Christian friends feel very much at ease with him. But his best friends are Yoruba self-determination activists along with quality comrades from other climes. Initially, the cousins of Boko Haram in Osun State claimed Aregbesola is not a genuine Muslim. Their grouse? A quality hand of fellowship was extended by the governor to practitioners of African Traditional Religion. This, they kicked against.

Enter the Christian bigots, who claimed Ogbeni wants to foist Islam on the whole state. Not many of them know he has quality ‘SU’s as blood brothers and sisters. Some are even Pastors today, having left Islam for Christianity. The change has never brought about any strain in their relationship. Instead, Ogbeni believes each person is entitled to finding God in his/her ways. So, each time the fundamentalist tag is used to describe him, I always laugh because those who do so may have never interacted with Aregbesola. They form opinion based on what his political opponents push out and a sense of hidden disdain for Muslims, who are not shy to wear the religion on their sleeves. He is such a Muslim. His dressing, mien, carriage and words carry Islam in almost every way. But he does not force it on anybody. Has never done so.

Immediately you see his picture or video, the first thing that strikes the person is like, “Oh! This one is a Muslim?” And for a seating Governor in a Southern Nigeria, where it is assumed only Christians are everywhere with a small mix of Muslims, it is natural that a misgiving that cannot be immediately explained is shown. Vice President, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo’s endorsement of Aregbesola towards his re-election, when the Osun State PDP sought to malign him as an extremist using the same set of Christian leaders campaigning against him today, readily comes to mind. Osinbajo gave what I will describe as the best description of Aregbesola so far. And the vice president is an RCCG Pastor.

Aregbesola has no blame in the matter at hand. A hidden disdain for practising Muslims, who are very proud of their religion is the root of the propaganda by underwater drummers of the governor’s critics, who believe he cannot be tackled on performance in office, that provided ammunition against this quality Yoruba Leader. He is loved by his people. Progressive minded elements love him more. He should just be encouraged to develop the state or be left alone.


Just my two cents!

HIJAB, CAN AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN NIGERIA (2)

http://magazine.timesafrican.com/2016/06/14/hijab-can-and-religious-tolerance-2/

June 14, 2016 by Dauda Ayanda

Obviously, the position of CAN which premised education as a sole property of missionaries requires rigorous review. The colonial authorities used education as a tool in administration towards integrating their culture and religious belief to respective countries they colonize. Yet the education and civilization promoted by the colonial masters were largely inherited from Islamic Civilization and Muslim Scholarship.

Sir John Glubb in A Short History of the Arab Peoples, 1969 stated that ‘the indebtedness of Western Christendom to Arab civilization was systematically played down, if not completely denied. A tradition was built up, by censorship and propaganda, that the Muslim imperialists had been mere barbarians and that the rebirth of learning in the West derived directly from Roman and Greek sources alone, without any Arab intervention’.

Furthermore, UNESCO and the International Year of Light and Light-based Technologies (IYL) in 2015 marked the 1000th anniversary since the appearance of the remarkable seven volume treatise on optics – Kitab al-Manazir – written by Arab scientist Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) who was a pioneering scientific thinker that made important contributions to the understanding of vision, optics and light. He was described as the father of modern Optics, Ophthalmology, Experimental Physics and Scientific Method and the first Theoretical Physicist.

Ian P. Howard argued in a 1996 Perception article that Alhazen should be credited with many discoveries and theories which were previously attributed to Western Europeans writing centuries later and influenced medieval European scientists and philosophers such as Roger Bacon, Robert Grosseteste, Witelo, Leonardo Di Vinci and Christian Huygens. But Alhazen’s book came into its own later, when it attracted the attention of mathematicians like Kepler, Descartes, and Huygens, thanks in part to Friedrich Risner’s edition published in Basel in 1572.

Again, the Arab Muslim physician, Abulcasis, has equally been described by many notable scholars as the father of modern surgery who first describe ectopic pregnancy and haemophilia among others and pioneered the preparation of medicines by sublimation and distillation. In 14th century, the French surgeon Guy de Chauliac quoted his book – al-Tasrif – over 200 times. Pietro Argallata also described Abū al-Qāsim as “without doubt the chief of all surgeons.”

Surprisingly, it took the turn of the millennium before World Health Organization (WHO) could acknowledge the pioneer work of Persian physician Rhazes (860-932) who gave the systematic description of measles, and its distinction from smallpox and chickenpox and published –The Book of Smallpox and Measles. The Bulletin of WHO, May 1970 read thus “His writings on smallpox and measles show originality and accuracy, and his essay on infectious diseases was the first scientific treatise on the subject.” It is thus befitting to ask: how would the world have been today without “algorithm”, “algebra” and “alkali” as the legacy of Muslim polymaths unto the West?

No wonder HRH Prince Charles of Wales, the eldest child and heir apparent of Queen Elizabeth II, said in 1993 “If there is much misunderstanding in the West about the nature of Islam, there is also much ignorance about the debt our own culture and civilization owe to the Islamic world. It is a failure, which stems, I think, from the straight-jacket of history, which we have inherited. The medieval Islamic world, from central Asia to the shores of the Atlantic, was a world where scholars and men of learning flourished. But because we have tended to see Islam as the enemy of the West, as an alien culture, society, and system of belief, we have tended to ignore or erase its great relevance to our own history”

Moreover, the pre-colonial scholarships of Muslim Ulamah in Yorubaland also lend credence to this assertion coupled with their promotion of societal stability via mutual tolerance. Long before Missionary adventure in 1841, Islam has been in Yorubaland for well over two hundred years where the first and only literacy was Arabic as widely noted by Emeritus Prof. Ade-Ajayi. According to Prof. Isaac Ogunbiyi, the origin of the word ‘Yoruba’ has been traced to Arabic writers such as Ahmad Baba (1627 in his mi’raj al-su’ud) and Muhammed Bello (1837 in hisinfaq al-maysur) both of whom were reported among the earliest to name the people in Oyo ‘yariba’, ‘yaruba’, ‘yarba’ at a time when they were still referring to themselves by their diverse ethnic identities.

It is on this basis of freedom of religion that Barack Obama stated at Cairo University in 2009 that “Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That’s why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it.”

Reinforcing this assertion, Michelle Obama paid a visit to Mulberry School for Girls in Tower Hamlets, United Kingdom in 2015 to inspire hundreds of young people where majority of teenage students cover their heads with hijab. Speaking to the crowd of hijab-clad girls, Mrs. Obama said, “When I look out at all these young women, I see myself. In so many ways your story is my story. I’m here because of you. Because girls like you inspire and impress me, every day.’ She couldn’t have chosen a more fantastically multicultural school – only a handful of hijab-free heads in the entire place – or a more impressive one, against the odds. More than 70 per cent of the students are on free school meals, but four-fifths go on to university.

Obviously, we live in one world as reiterated by Kofi Annan. We need to understand and respect each other, live peacefully together and live up to the best of our respective traditions. That is not as easy as we might like it to be. But that is all the more reason to try harder, with all our tools and all our will.

It is time to unlearn intolerance and accept hijab as a divinely endowed honours worn by blessed Eve wife of Adam, Sarah wife of Abraham, Mary mother of Jesus and Khadijah wife of Prophet Muhammad (may Allah be pleased with them all) as a symbol of purity and humility.

...Concluded

HIJAB, CAN AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE IN NIGERIA (1)

http://magazine.timesafrican.com/2016/06/13/hijab-can-and-religious-tolerance-in-nigeria1/

June 13, 2016 by Dauda Ayanda

On September 11, 2003, two teachers at the Franklin Science Academy in Muskogee, Oklahoma, were discussing the terrorist attacks that had occurred exactly two years earlier, when they spotted a sixth grader, Nashala Hearn, wearing a Muslim headscarf. The school’s dress code prohibited students from wearing “hats, caps, bandanas, plastic caps, or hoods on jackets inside the building.” One of the teachers sent Nashala to the principal, who warned and later suspended the eleven-year-old when she continued to wear the scarf.

The school attorney said, “You treat religious items the same as you would any other item, no better or worse. Our dress code prohibits headgear, period.” The school was willing to articulate the Establishment Clause argument against its initial antagonist, the Rutherford Institute, a Christian civil liberties foundation that assisted the Hearns in filing their complaint in a federal court. When the US Justice Department intervened by filing additional briefs against the school in the spring of 2004, however, the school quickly caved in.

Under a settlement agreement, the school agreed to change the dress code so as to include an accommodation, or exception, for religious headgear (hijab). The school also paid an undisclosed sum of monetary damages to the Hearn family. In response, Assistant Attorney General Alexander Acosta issued a public statement that “This settlement reaffirms the principle that public schools cannot require students to check their faith at the schoolhouse door.”

It is this constitutional position of law that underlines the judgment delivered by Justice Jide Falola of the state High Court in Osun State on Friday June 3, 2016 in favour of a case instituted by Osun State Muslim Community against the state government on the right of female Muslim students in public schools in the state to use hijab on their school uniforms. The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), its chairman and others later joined voluntarily as respondents.

In his judgment, Justice Falola traced the history of religion and observed that religion was introduced to the case when CAN and others joined the suit, noting that he decided to deliver the judgment after all plea to settle the matter amicably has proved futile. Premising his judgment on Section 38 of the Nigeria Constitution and Article 8 of the 2004 policy published by the state Ministry of Education, Justice Falola held that female Muslim students were not exempted from the freedom of religion, conscience and thought.

The judgment re-echoed the position of Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General, addressed to the Department of Public Information (DPI) seminar on “Confronting Islamophobia: Education for Tolerance and Understanding” in New York, 2004 where he identified unlearning intolerance in part as a matter of legal protection. The right to freedom of religion – and to be free from discrimination based on religion – is long enshrined in international law, from the UN Charter to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other instruments. Such standards have been incorporated into the laws of many countries.

Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. It is fostered by knowledge, openness, communication, and freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmony in difference. It is not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement. Tolerance, the virtue that makes peace possible, contributes to the replacement of the culture of war by a culture of peace as enshrined in Article 1.1 of the Declaration on Principles of Tolerance, proclaimed and signed by the Member States of UNESCO on 16 November 1995.

Article 26 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the international community in 1948, states that “Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.”

It is on the basis of using education as a tool in promoting tolerance that prompted Vernon Hills High School in USA to stage “Walk a Mile in Her Hijab” event in 2015 designed to allow Christians and other non-Muslim female students the opportunity to wear hijab and gain a better understanding of the Muslim faith. In the same vein, Dr Larycia Hawkins, a Christian and a Wheaton College Political Science Professor, posted photos of herself on Facebook and Twitter wearing a hijab to show solidarity with Muslim women in America and inviting other women to join her.

Saheela Ibraheem, a native of Ede in Osun State with her full-grown hijab was accepted to Harvard College at age ahead of her time. At 16, she was named to a list of “The World’s 50 Smartest Teenagers,” which got the attention of the White House. She was invited to Washington D.C. in early March 2015 where she introduced the president and first lady at a reception to kick off Black History Month. Acknowledging her exceptional nature, Obama said, “We are so proud of your accomplishments and all that lies ahead of you, and you reflect our history. Young people like this inspire our future.” At no point in her career has she been denied wearing hijab.

..to be continued

SECULARISM, SHARI'AH AND NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION (3)

Published in The Guardian Newspaper

By Dauda Ayanda on November 27, 2015 2:36 am

http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/2015/11/secularism-shariah-and-nigerian-constitution-3/

THE post-colonial constituent assembly of 1978 made provision for a Shari’ah Court of Appeal for a state that wants it. In explaining the background to the inclusion of the Shari’ah Court of Appeal in the Constitution, eminent legal icon, Prof. Ben Nwabueze in a paper delivered at Spiritan International School of Theology in 2001 said: … a Sharia Court of Appeal in the Constitution, which was a half-way compromise contraption adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1978 to placate the Moslem members who had walked out en masse from its meetings to press home their demand for a full Constitutional recognition of the Sharia in its civil as well as criminal aspects. The compromise, of which I was one of the principal architects, bestowed Constitutional recognition on Sharia, counter-balanced by a like recognition of customary law, but only to the extent of establishing for “any state that requires it,” a Sharia Court of Appeal or (as the case may be) a Customary Court of Appeal. No wonder Sections 275 to 279 of the Constitution make analogous provision for the Shari’ah Courts of Appeal of a state while Section 280 provides for the creation of States Customary Courts of Appeal.

The often cited section of Nigerian Constitution on the provision of a secular state is Section 10 of 1999 Constitution thus: The Government of the federation or of a state shall not adopt any religion as state religion. This constitutional provision is wrongly interpreted by some advocates of secularism to mean a secular state. This is more compounded by the fact that there is no legal pronouncement on the particular section of the Constitution. Therefore, the logical interpretation of the provision is that a single religion is prohibited from being imposed on all the citizens of the country. In other words, Nigeria is a non-theocratic, multi-religious and multi-cultural state.

Moreover, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court – Justice Niki Tobi – similarly expressed the view that Nigeria is not a secular state. He said: There is the general notion that section 11 (of the 1989 Constitution, similar to section 10 of the 1999 Constitution) makes Nigeria a secular nation. That is not correct. The word secular etymologically means pertaining to things not spiritual, ecclesiastical or not concerned with religion. Secularism, the noun variant of the adjective, secular, means the belief that state, morals, education etc should be independent of religion. What section 11 is out to achieve is that Nigeria cannot, for example, adopt either Christianity or Islam as a state religion. But that is quite different from secularism (see Fundamental Legal Issues in Nigeria: Essays in Honour of Andrew Obaseki, 1999).

In the same vein, Prof. Ben Nwabueze expressed his scholarly opinion in a paper presented at the School of Theology Symposium on the state provision for a religion-based court to enforce the civil aspect of Shari’ah as not inconsistent with section 10 of the 1999 Constitution. He made a distinction between civil and criminal law as it relates to the secularity question and the Constitutional provisions relating thereto. The Professor said: In civil law, the state, through its judicial arm, the courts, merely interposes its machinery as an impartial, disinterested arbiter between parties in a dispute; it lacks the power to initiate the process of adjudication, and must wait until it is moved by one of the disputants. So the enforcement, through the courts, of the civil aspects of Sharia does not involve the support, promotion or sponsorship by the state of the Moslem religion in preference to other religious. The controversy does not therefore concern the application of Sharia civil law. Thus from the foregoing, section 10 of 1999 constitution is geared towards attaining an equilibrium among different religions in the country and preventing a state of theocracy which is a government by an established religion.

This fact is further corroborated by Section 38 sub-section 1 which states that every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom (either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance. This provision caters for freedom of expression in public and private as well as religion. Shari’ah is both a principle of religion and law which is in accordance with this provision. Also, Section 14 sub-section 2 states that sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom Government through this constitution derives all its power and authority. Muslims constitute 50 per cent of the population (according to CIA world fact book 2010) and their several centuries’ old legal system of regulating their temporal and spiritual life is germane to this provision.

In recognizing the fact that religion should be a right for moral compass, justice and equity in a multi-religious society of ours and not a privilege, the late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo set up the first Pilgrims’ Board in 1958 to assist Muslim faithful in fulfilling one of the requirements of the five pillars of Islam. This socio-cultural understanding of building a just and egalitarian society also explained why General Yakubu Gowon as the then head of state and Chief Obafemi Awolowo as the Vice Chairman in 1969 enlisted Nigeria as an observer-member of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). This culminated into a full-fledged membership in 1986 by General Ibrahim Babangida in line with strategic diplomat interest of Nigeria with neighboring Francophone countries and other African countries like Cameroun, Chad, Niger, Benin and Cote de Ivoire who are also full-fledged members of OIC. Paradoxically, the percentages of Muslims in these countries are lower than that of Nigeria while there is mutual respect and tolerance across all religion.

Obviously, secularism as a concept was developed by agnostics and advanced by atheists and that underscore the temporal nature of its philosophy. It also seeks to promote godlessness which is at crossroad with African culture on one hand and Islamic system of Shari’ah on the other hand.

No wonder, Prof. Ben Nwabueze criticized the rigid separation of state and religion as follows: It can thus be concluded that no society in which morality and religion are absent can ever attain and maintain liberty, democracy and justice. Hence, religion needs encouragement by the state to thrive and to be effective in providing an anchor for morality and in fostering the morality-based values of liberty, democracy and justice, and in inculcating among citizens morality, spirituality and piety. A developing country should not indulge in the doctrinaire rigidity of the state completely dissociating itself from religion. Whatever discrimination against non-religionists – agnostics and such others – that may be entailed in the state giving encouragement to all religions on the basis of equality is not really an unfair one, certainly not such as to warrant the state in keeping off religion completely. (see B.O. Nwabueze, Constitutional Democracy in Africa, Spectrum Books, Ibadan, 2003).

In conclusion, the newly appointed Secretary General of Anglican Communion Worldwide and the immediate past Kaduna Diocesan Bishop of Church of Nigeria, the eminent Rev. Josiah Idowu-Fearon recently stated in Vanguard Newspaper of July 11, 2015 under the caption “Bishop who teaches Islam” that:….. Instead, we should come together and be aware of the fact that secularism has become a religion and it is very strong and some of the promoters control most of the media. Christians ought to come together, forget whether we are Roman Catholic, Pentecostal and all others who worship God, the Christian way and join hands with the Muslims who are also fighting secularism. That is my mission. Indeed, secularism is a form of religion that denies the existence of Almighty God!!!
Concluded.



Engr. Dauda Ayanda (MNSE),wrote from Ibadan.

SECULARISM, SHARI'AH AND NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION (2)

Published in The Guardian Newspaper 

By Dauda Ayanda on November 6, 2015 2:58 am

http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/2015/11/secularism-shariah-and-nigerian-constitution-2/


CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 25

Earlier before 1861 when the British forces arrived in Lagos, Shari’ah legal system had been practiced in some towns in Yorubaland as already mentioned (see The Guardian Newspaper of 12th, 19th and 26th June 2015 under the caption: Shari’ah and quest for legal pluralism). It had therefore started to receive gradual patronage in some other parts of Yorubaland when it was forestalled by the arrival of the British Colonialists.

Unlike the Northern Nigeria where the Shari’ah legal system was firmly rooted into their judicial system and the British rulers found it extremely difficult todisenfranchise, the Shari’ah in the Southern part, particular Yorubaland had aserious blow from the British Government. Thus, the British Government used its might to enforce customary law in all places in Yorubaland at the expense of established Islamic law in its judicial administration and created Area Courts to replace Shari’ah Courts.

The history of Nigerian legal system is interwoven with that of the colonial British administration. According to former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Dahiru Musdapher in a lecture titled “Law Reform in Nigeria: Challenges and Opportunities” in 2014 explained that the origin of the legal profession in Nigeria dates back to 1862 in Lagos, with the introduction of the British patterned courts by the colonialadministration. This was as a result of conclusion of treaty of cession between the then Oba of Lagos, his chiefs and the British Crown.

The introduction of the Courts (via the main body of English law by ordinance No.3 of 1863) brought about the need for an organized legal profession that will apply English laws and precedents. Between 1864 and 1865, about five Ordinances which related to the legal profession and administrationof justice were made for the settlement of Lagos. Since then to this day, that colonial history still wields an abiding and compelling influence on every aspect of our legal system.

Following the proclamation of the protectorate of Northern Nigeria on 1st January 1900, new courts were formed; namely: the Supreme Court of the North, Provisional Courts (one for each province), Customary courts and Native courts (Shari’ah courts). A Native Court Proclamation Ordinance, 1906, also permitted native courts to exercise judicial functions under the direction of the Chief Justice or other Justice of the Supreme Court.They were to execute local laws and customs that were “not opposed to natural morality and humanity”.

In 1914, the Northern and Southern Protectorates were amalgamated resulting in the birth of Nigeria, Lord Lugard was appointed the first Governor of the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. He established a uniform system of courts with some modifications. Among the modifications include the deliberate abolishment of Shari’ah legal system in Yorubaland while status of Shari’ah law in the North was reduced using validity and repugnancy tests. In 1933, the British introduced a legislation which enables the British courts to entertain appeals from the Native courts.


In 1943, the government passed a number of ordinances, which also affected the courts sub-systems including but not limited to Native Courts Colony Ordinance (Shari’ah Courts). Following the regionalization of the Federation, in October 1954, a Federal Supreme Court was established. A High Court was also established for the territory of Lagos and for each of the three regions while the magistrate courts remained. A Moslem Court of Appeal was also set up in 1956 which exercised original criminal and civil jurisdiction and was also an appellate court. It was in 1959 that Islamic law was excluded from the sphere of criminal law and confined to the field of personal law.

Towards independence, the magistrate courts in the North were restricted to criminal causes. The district courts were established for the purpose of exercising civil jurisdiction. Also at the eve of independence, a Court of Resolution was set up in the North to resolve whatever issue may have arisen between the High Court and the Shari’ah Court of Appeal. It determined which cases should go to the High Court and which to go to the Sharia Court of Appeal.

Unarguably, the colonial Lugard Constitution of 1914, Clifford Constitution of 1922, Richard Constitution of 1946, Macpherson Constitution of 1951 and Lyttletton Constitution of 1954 recognized the multi-religious nature of Nigeria with the establishment of native Shari’ah Courts and Customary Courts alongside British System of Courts.

One of the colonial authorities, Perrone acknowledged this fact in the introduction to Maliki Law that: “Muhammadan Law in all its detail, religious as well as civil, has for us an immense interest. It necessitates the study of the social institutions of a people which an immutable law has, for twelve and a half centuries, moulded and remoulded at frequent intervals. For here, it has been neither the nation nor the people which have made the Law; it is the Law which has made and moulded the nation and the people. Both the outer form and the inner spirit bear impress of the one word: Religion. In Islam, there is but one Law, and it is the Religious Law, signified in the word: Shari’ah. In other words, it is the only Supreme Law; for it emanates from God, who decreed its main bases in the Koran. With Mohammadans, the law is also dogma (see F. H. Ruxton, 1916, Preface of Maliki Law, Lucas and Company, London, Reprint in 1978).

Shari’ah laws are written native laws that draw its origin from two principal sources – the Holy Quran and Hadiths of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). These two principal sources are complemented by Ijma (consensus of Islamic scholars), Qiyas (analogous deduction) and Ijtihad (intellectual exertion) while customary laws are unwritten body of customs, accepted by members of the community as binding upon them.

In other words, they are unrecorded tradition and history of the people which has grown with the growth of the people to stability and eventually become an intrinsic part of their customs.
At independence in 1960, the Shari’ah Court of Appeal replaced the Moslem Court of Appeal. The Shari’ah Court of Appeal had civil jurisdiction only, and in cases governed by personal Moslem law. It had power to entertain contempt cases. The magistrate exercised civil and criminal jurisdiction in the South.
So, it was that at independence, Nigeria had as part of the sources of her laws, the Common law of England, the doctrines of Equity, as well as the Statutes of General Application in force in England as at 1st January, 1900. These were in addition to the local legislations (both at federal and regional levels), Case law, as well as Islamic law, and Customary laws that are not repugnant to public policy,natural justice, equity and good conscience as widely expressed by retired Justice Dahiru Musdapher.
To be continued

Engr. Ayanda (MNSE) wrote from Ibadan.

EMIR SANUSI: RAISING DUST IN WATER

By Jafaar Jafaar
Premium Times September 28, 2015

Available online at http://blogs.premiumtimesng.com/?p=169059


I think we deserve some respect from our brothers from different religious and cultural backgrounds in order to live in harmony.

I made this argument about a year ago when the rumour of Emir Muhammadu Sanusi’s marriage to a “minor” raised some dusts. The age of consent varies according to culture and religion, I had argued.

I don’t know why one would combust energy criticising cultural practices that are contrary to his religion, culture or warped intuition. Nigeria has two major religions which don’t prohibit marriage at the age of 18. The Constitution doesn’t also prohibit it.

Writing about the age of consent, Professors Richard Wortley and Stephen Smallbone said girls married very young in European society prior to the 19th century.

“In Medieval and early modern European societies, the age of marriage remained low, with documented cases of brides as young as seven years, although marriages were typically not consummated until the girl reached puberty (Bullough 2004). Shakespeare’s Juliet was just 13, and there is no hint in the play that this was considered to be exceptional. The situation was similar on the other side of the Atlantic; Bullough reports the case in 1689 of a nine-year-old bride in Virginia. At the start of the nineteenth century in England, it was legal to have sex with a 10 year-old girl.”

That was the Western society, which guides our sense of reasoning. If you think you are copying the Western society by criticising the marriage of an 18-year-old, then you are wrong.

One might say what I quoted above is an old practice. Yet, currently, in England and Wales, the minimum legal age for marriage is 16, and that is with the consent of parents. At 18, both the male and female are free to marry even WITHOUT parental consent.

Ever wondered why the Westerners still celebrate ‘Sweet 16′ parties? In the Western society that is characterised by debauchery and all manners of secular practices, the 16th birthday party is marked because it is considered a bridge between youth and adulthood.

In view of Islamic religious practices and tradition, I know Muslims won’t whine over someone’s marriage to an 18-year-old. In our village, hardly can you spot a 18-year-old that is not married. In a typical Hausa household, you can’t claim not to have a grandma, a mother, an aunt or a sister who was married off before 18.

As I noted last year, in Christianity, canon law previously provided that the minimum age for marriage was 12; yes, 12 years. The law was later repealed in 1917 and the age for marriage from 12 to 14 for girls and 16 for boys. But why would a true Christian condemn a practice allowed by his religion?

Even if you are an adherent of Buddhism, the founder of the religion, Gautama Buddha, married his wife at the age of 16.

Of course there are certain cultural practices that are universally condemned like the caste system, slavery and incest. But despite the near-universality of incest taboo, among the Polahi nomadic tribe of the Gorontalo province of Indonesia, incest is not a taboo. It is permitted for father to marry daughter or mother to marry son, and so on. In the Polynasian societies/languages, there is nothing called “incest” because it just a normal practice. You have to respect their culture since they perhaps see the exogamy we might consider a morally right practice as a bad practice.

What I still do not know is the basis on which the argument is specifically hinged. Is it on religion or culture? The sense of cultural relativism is poor in Nigeria.

I see criticisms to Emir Sanusi as an affront and insult against my religion and culture. When the 72-year-old publisher of the Champion newspaper, Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu impregnated and later married a 26-year-old, I didn’t talk because I have respect for people’s choices. I was also mum when 82-year-old Chief Tony Anenih married a damsel in her early 20s. When Dim Odimegwu Ojukwu married Bianca, I didn’t raise alarm over their wide age difference. We see it as a triumph of love. When the 76-year-old Alaafin of Oyo married a 16-year-old, I didn’t whimper. When 74-year-old Italian fashion designer, Roberto Cavalli, frolics on the beach with a girl in her early 20s, hell doesn’t break loose. When King Mswati of Swaziland picked a 18-year-old as his 14th wife, the Swazis saw nothing wrong with it because it is part of their culture.

A Hausa proverb observes that if you are hated, you will be criticised for raising dust when you fall into water.

I think we deserve some respect from our brothers from different religious and cultural backgrounds in order to live in harmony
.

REVIEW