For weeks, Nigeria’s media space has been buzzing with heated debates over the establishment of Sharia arbitration panels in some southwest states. Supporters argue that these panels simply provide a legal avenue for Muslims to resolve family disputes according to Islamic principles, while critics fear they could introduce a parallel judicial system in a region not traditionally governed by Sharia law.
At the heart of this debate is a fundamental question: Does Nigeria’s constitution allow for the establishment of Sharia courts outside the north? And if so, under what conditions?
How the Controversy Started
The issue first gained traction in December 2024 when the Oyo State chapter of the Supreme Council for Shariah in Nigeria announced its intention to establish a Sharia court in the state. The launch was scheduled for January 11, 2025, at the Muslim Community Islamic Centre in Oyo. However, the announcement sparked immediate backlash from various groups and individuals, who viewed it as an attempt to introduce a religious legal system into a secular state.
Facing mounting criticism, the council quickly backtracked, stating that its initiative had been misunderstood. Rather than establishing a full-fledged court, it claimed the plan was simply to set up an independent arbitration panel to help Muslims settle family disputes.
The matter escalated further when the first sitting of the arbitration panel took place in Ekiti State, prompting a swift response from the state government. Officials made it clear that the judicial structure of the state does not recognize or accommodate Sharia courts or arbitration panels.
This has led to widespread discussions about the role of Sharia law in Nigeria’s legal system and whether southwest states can legally establish Sharia-based arbitration mechanisms.
Does Nigeria’s Constitution Allow Sharia Law?
The short answer is: Yes, but with limitations.
Nigeria’s legal system is a blend of common law, customary law, and Sharia law, reflecting the country’s diverse ethnic and religious landscape. The constitution provides a legal framework for the operation of Sharia law, but it is strictly limited to civil matters and personal law among Muslims.
What the Constitution Says
Sections 275 and 277 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) explicitly allow states to establish Sharia Courts of Appeal, but only if they choose to do so. These courts are designed to handle cases involving Islamic personal law, such as marriage, family disputes, and inheritance.
Section 275 (1) states:
“There shall be for any State that requires it a Sharia Court of Appeal for that State.”
This means that no state is mandated to establish a Sharia court—it is entirely at the discretion of the state government.
Currently, thirteen northern states have Sharia Courts of Appeal, including Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Niger, Sokoto, Yobe, Zamfara, and Kwara. The Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, also has a Sharia Court of Appeal.
Jurisdiction: What Sharia Courts Can and Cannot Do
Under Section 277, Sharia courts have the authority to adjudicate on matters concerning Islamic personal law—but only when all parties involved are Muslims. This includes:
- Marriage and Divorce (validity, dissolution, and related matters)
- Guardianship of Children
- Inheritance and Wills
- Family Relationships
- Charitable Endowments (Wakf), Gifts, and Succession
However, Sharia courts do not have the power to handle criminal cases under the constitution. Despite this, some northern states have expanded Sharia law to include criminal offences such as theft, adultery, and blasphemy through state legislation.
Can Individuals or Groups Establish Sharia Courts?
No. The constitution only allows state governments to establish Sharia courts, not individuals, religious groups, or private organizations. This is where the controversy in the southwest arises—can a religious body set up an arbitration panel that functions like a court? The answer is legally unclear, but most legal experts argue that only state-recognized judicial bodies can handle legal disputes.
Why Is This Issue So Controversial?
- Perceived Imposition of Religious Law in a Secular State
- While the constitution permits Sharia law, it does so only in specific circumstances. Many critics believe the establishment of arbitration panels in the southwest could lead to the gradual introduction of a parallel legal system in a region that has historically operated under common law and customary courts.
- Legal and Constitutional Uncertainty
- The southwest states in question—Oyo and Ekiti—do not have Sharia Courts of Appeal. This raises the question: Can arbitration panels operate independently of the state’s recognized judicial system?
- Fear of Religious Tensions
- Nigeria has a long history of religious and ethnic conflicts. Some fear that the push for Sharia arbitration in the southwest could exacerbate tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims.
- Lack of Government Approval
- The Ekiti State government has already stated that Sharia arbitration panels have no legal standing in the state. If other states follow suit, the panels may struggle to gain legitimacy.
What Happens Next?
The fate of Sharia arbitration panels in the southwest will likely depend on:
- Legal Challenges: Opponents may take the matter to court, seeking a ruling on whether these panels can legally function without state approval.
- Government Intervention: State governments may introduce clearer policies on the role of religious arbitration within their jurisdictions.
- Public Reaction: Continued public debate and protests could influence political leaders to take a firmer stance on the matter.
Final Thoughts: A Test for Nigeria’s Legal System
The controversy surrounding Sharia arbitration in the southwest is more than just a religious issue—it is a constitutional test for Nigeria’s multi-layered legal system. While Sharia courts exist in the north, their expansion into regions without a historical precedent for Islamic law presents new legal and political challenges.
Ultimately, the resolution of this issue will shape how Nigeria balances religious diversity, constitutional law, and the principles of a secular democracy. For now, the debate continues, and all eyes are on how state governments and legal institutions will respond.
