By Hassan Sadisu Imam
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/8th-Annual-Conference-of-the-Nigeria-ILA.jpg")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
The controversy surrounding the Sharia panel in the South-West of Nigeria began with the proposal by the Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria (SCSN) in Oyo State to establish an independent arbitration panel to adjudicate civil and marital disputes among Muslims. However, a flier announcing its inauguration misrepresented the initiative as the establishment of a Sharia court in Oyo town and its environs, scheduled for January 11, 2025. This mischaracterization triggered a wave of backlash from Yoruba socio-political groups and online commentators, ultimately compelling the Islamic council to suspend the event indefinitely.
At the core of this dispute lies a fundamental constitutional question. Section 275(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria grants state governments the discretion to establish Sharia Courts of Appeal if they deem it necessary for the administration of justice among their Muslim populations. Despite this constitutional allowance, the governors of South-Western states have consistently refrained from establishing such courts, thereby creating a legal vacuum that leaves many Muslims without a proper forum to seek redress on matters of Islamic personal law. It is within this context that the Independent Sharia Arbitration Panel sought to operate, a voluntary mechanism designed to provide an alternative dispute resolution forum for consenting Muslims, ensuring that their marital, inheritance, and personal law disputes are resolved in accordance with their faith.
The constitution does not mandate the establishment of Sharia courts, nor does it compel any individual or state to adopt them. However, it equally does not prohibit such courts where necessary. In Northern Nigeria, thirteen states, including Kano, Kaduna, and Sokoto, have operational Sharia Courts of Appeal, alongside the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), which also accommodates both Sharia and Customary Courts of Appeal.
These structures serve as models for any state that may wish to establish similar judicial frameworks. The refusal of South-Western states to recognize this option has left Muslims in the region with no alternative but to submit their disputes to Customary Courts, which neither apply Islamic law nor guarantee that the presiding judges possess any knowledge of it. This situation is not only legally questionable but also fundamentally unjust. A Muslim couple that contracts a marriage under Islamic rites should not be compelled to have their divorce adjudicated under customary law, which bears no relevance to the principles governing their union. This is not merely a technical matter but a fundamental issue of access to justice.
Despite its legal foundation, the Sharia Arbitration Panel in Oyo State has become a lightning rod for controversy, particularly among non-Muslims who fear that it might encroach upon the secular legal system. Following the public outcry, the council clarified that its intention was never to establish a Sharia court but to create independent arbitration panels to resolve family disputes among Muslims. Nevertheless, the issue gained further traction when a similar panel convened its first sitting in Ekiti State, prompting the state government to issue a statement asserting that its judicial structure does not recognize Sharia courts or arbitration panels. The Attorney General of Ekiti State, Dayo Apata (SAN), emphasized that existing judicial structures, comprising the Customary Courts, the Customary Court of Appeal, and the High Court, were sufficient to handle issues related to Islamic, Christian, and traditional marriages. This position, however, fails to acknowledge the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alkamawa v. Bello (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 552) 582, which categorically held that Islamic law is not a subset of customary law but an independent and codified legal system derived from divine revelation. Unlike customary law, which is region-specific and often unwritten, Islamic law possesses a structured jurisprudence that applies universally to adherents of the faith.
The fear-mongering surrounding the Sharia panel echoes previous controversies, such as the hijab debate, where opponents argued that permitting the hijab in public institutions would advance an “Islamization” agenda. However, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has already settled such matters by reaffirming religious freedoms, underscoring that the mere accommodation of Islamic practices does not amount to the imposition of religious law on non-Muslims. The same logic applies here: participation in the Sharia Arbitration Panel is entirely voluntary, and its jurisdiction is confined strictly to civil disputes among consenting Muslims. It lacks the power to enforce rulings beyond the consent of the parties involved, making it no different from any other private arbitration mechanism.
These Sharia panels are not novel institutions. The Lagos Sharia Panel, for instance, was established as far back as 2003 and has been instrumental in settling countless family disputes among Muslims without infringing upon the rights of non-Muslims or disrupting the broader legal order. Similar panels have long functioned within mosque settings, including those at the Central Mosque in Ibadan since 2002, Abesan Central Mosque in Ipaja, Egba Muslims Central Mosque in Abeokuta since 2018, and the Osun State Muslim Community Secretariat in Osogbo since 2005. For over two decades, these panels have successfully resolved matters of Islamic personal law that would have otherwise further congested the already overburdened conventional courts.
The right of Muslims to practice their faith, including the use of Sharia in personal matters, is not merely a legal argument but a constitutionally guaranteed right. Section 38 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) unequivocally affirms the right of every Nigerian to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the right to manifest and practice their religion. The Sharia Arbitration Panel operates strictly within these constitutional boundaries and does not exercise jurisdiction over criminal cases or matters outside Islamic personal law. The panel is purely voluntary, and its decisions, like those of any other arbitration panel, are subject to enforcement only with the consent of the parties involved. There is no law in Nigeria that prohibits the formation of arbitration panels for the resolution of civil disputes among consenting parties, and Muslims who appear before these panels do so of their own volition, as these panels lack any coercive powers.
The principles of religious freedom and arbitration extend beyond Nigeria. The United Nations Charter upholds the protection of human rights, including freedom of religion, as a fundamental principle. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides a legally binding guarantee of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, ensuring that individuals can freely practice their faith without coercion or discrimination. Similarly, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.”
Muslim personal law is harmless, and its existence in other jurisdictions further underscores the misplaced nature of the current opposition. In India, where Muslims constitute a minority, Muslim Personal Law is codified and recognized, allowing adherents to resolve family and inheritance matters within an Islamic legal framework. In the United Kingdom, where Sharia has no formal legal status, the Muslim Law (Shariah) Council UK provides mediation services for British Muslims, and its rulings are often upheld in conventional courts under contract law principles.
The hostility toward the Sharia panel in Oyo and Ekiti States raises troubling questions about the sincerity of those leading the opposition. More concerning is the stance of those who are expected to know better, including the governors of Oyo and Ogun States and the Attorney General of Ekiti State, who have joined the chorus of disapproval. The argument that the existing legal framework in the South-West is sufficient falls apart when viewed against the backdrop of judicial pronouncements that have repeatedly held that Customary Courts lack jurisdiction over Islamic family matters. The refusal to acknowledge this legal reality not only deprives Muslims of access to justice but also undermines the very principles of equity and fairness upon which the legal system is built.
Since Nigerian case law has firmly established that Customary Courts lack the jurisdiction to entertain disputes arising from marriages contracted under Islamic law, a pressing question arises: where, then, are Muslims in the South meant to turn for legal redress in matters of marriage dissolution, child guardianship, and inheritance? The legal vacuum is undeniable, and yet, rather than addressing this glaring deficiency, public officials and political actors continue to peddle misinterpretations and distortions. The time has come to rise above sentiment and embrace the constitutional guarantees that belong to all, irrespective of faith. If true democracy is measured by a nation’s ability to accommodate diversity without coercion, then denying Muslims the right to arbitrate their disputes in accordance with their faith is not only unconstitutional but also a betrayal of the principles upon which Nigeria was founded.
About the Author
Hassan Sadisu Imam is a committed legal practitioner at Limelight Attorneys LLP, renowned for his deep-seated passion for constitutional law. He has written extensively on contemporary legal issues, providing insightful analysis on matters of significant public interest.
He can be reached at:📞 0803 639 9690, ✉️ hassanlimanesq@gmail.com
Revolutionizing Legal Research: "Civil Litigation Serial" and "Encyclopedia of Nigerian Case Law" Now Available
"Civil Litigation Serial" and "Encyclopedia of Nigerian Case Law Principles and Authorities" are must-have resources for legal practitioners, offering comprehensive insights into civil litigation and case law principles. The first volumes are now available for purchase through independent booksellers across Nigeria. Call 07051822705 to get your copies today! ______________________________________________________________________ Grab Your Complete Law Reports Now!!! IP, Company, Evidence & Land Cases - All Volumes With Digital Index!!!
To get a copy kindly Call 07044444777, 07044444999, 08181999888, https://alexandernigeria.com/ ______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
