Nigeria is a country with two distinct legal systems, whether we admit it or not. That is the only way to describe the country, given that some people insist that everything, including the constitution, be subordinated to their religion. To cover up their refusal to accept the secularity of Nigeria, they make such claims as, “Nigeria is a multi-religious country, not a secular country.”
But pray, who decided on the ‘religions’ covered by that assumption? Is the Ifa religion in the list? Would a Muslim or Christian agree to abide by the verdict of the Ifa oracle in a dispute involving life and death?
Those were the questions that assailed my mind when Sheikh Ahmad Gumi recently declared his support for the commutation of the death sentence passed in 2020 on Maryam Sanda, the woman who killed her husband in a gripping case that shocked the nation. According to the revised list published the other day, the convict is now to spend only 12 years in jail instead of keeping a date with the hangman.
Maryam Sanda
Very few non-political cases have generated so much hot blood as this one on social media. A content analysis of the reactions clearly shows that many Nigerians are unhappy with the so-called clemency, more so as the case is still under appeal. Why commute the sentence of a woman who may yet be freed (technically) by the Supreme Court? Isn’t the president tying the hands of the judges? How many ordinary Nigerians enjoy this kind of steroidal advocacy while on death row?
Sheikh Gumi is as entitled as any other Nigerian to give his opinion on any issue. However, his perspective indicates that there are two sets of laws in Nigeria—one for Muslims and the constitution for the rest. We are back again to the subject of whether all our micro-national and religious proclivities are subordinated to the constitution or whether we can pick and choose which law to obey at any point in time.
The constitution generally takes precedence over religious injunctions in a secular country. Secularism stresses the separation of religion and state, ensuring that laws and governance are based on secular principles, laws, and human rights rather than religious doctrines.
Granted that individuals are entitled to their personal religious beliefs, their official policies and laws are expected to be in conformity with the constitution in order to maintain neutrality, equality, and protect the rights of all citizens regardless of their faith. In a properly run secular state, religious injunctions should not be considered superior to the constitution.
Shaytan?
Sheikh Gumi does not think so. Reacting to the contentious presidential clemency, he said Sanda’s actions and subsequent remorse were evidence that the tragedy was influenced by Shaytan (Satan) and was not premeditated.
“They said she stabbed him, then broke down crying over his body. Do you understand? That is the work of Shaytan.”
Gumi thinks that people like us who disagree are doing so out of ignorance.
Elucidating his point, he explained, “In Islam, when the family of the victim forgives, it is not a weakness, it is mercy. And mercy is more beloved to Allah than vengeance… Maryam Sanda’s execution would not have been the right solution. The presidential pardon she received was the correct one. In Islam, justice is not driven by anger but by balance and compassion,” he added.
But, speaking for myself, I fully understand the concept of forgiveness in Islamic law. It’s out there on Google at the click of a mouse. There is no obfuscation about it. What many Nigerians who disagree with the commutation of Sanda’s death sentence say is that, as far as the Nigerian constitution is concerned, murder is an offence against the state, and subterranean post-judgement religious advocacy by a mullah to overturn a judicial verdict is not equitable.
Let religions thrive in their designated lanes. Let the state, too, flourish as an umbrella for all.
Unifying flag
It is easier for us to be united behind our national flag than at the back of any religion. For some reason, over the years, we have refused to banish the genie of religion dictating our reaction to cases already resolved by the secular state.
The friction between religion and state is complex, usually arising from competing claims of religious authority (spiritual, divine law) and state authority (secular, civil law) over the same population and territory. This conflict is expressed in various ways throughout history and even today. No matter how understanding one is inclined to be, it is difficult to accept the reduction of every secular argument to a theocratic technicality.
The danger in encouraging a theocratic intrusion is that it engenders a resort to self-help based on one’s perception of religious injunctions as opposed to court judgements. There is a long list of people who pushed the constitution of their country of residence aside to mete out judgement in obedience to some religious injunction.
For example, a British citizen, Samia Shahid, 28, from Bradford, UK, died while visiting relatives in Pandori in northern Punjab, Pakistan. She died in a so-called honour killing. As part of the ritual, she was raped before her death. The Pakistani chief investigator reported that Ms Shahid’s father and former husband carried out her murder. Her former husband, Chaudhry Muhammad Shakeel, is accused of murder and is reported to have confessed to strangling her with her scarf, according to local police. Ms Shahid’s father and first husband have been held in Pakistan in connection with her death.
Chaudhry Muhammad Shahid, her father, is being held as an accessory to her murder.
Her second husband, Syed Mukhtar Kazim, believes she was the victim of a so-called honour killing, as her family did not approve of their marriage. ‘Honour killing’ is defined as the killing of a relative, especially a girl or woman, who is perceived to have brought dishonour on the family. In another case, two cousins were jailed for life for the murder of a 21-year-old Muslim bride who was stabbed to death in a wedding-day honour killing. The two cousins were angry at her (Sahjda Bibi) marriage with a divorcee and non-blood relative.
In Nigeria, we all remember the tragedy of 12 May 2022, when Deborah Samuel Yakubu, a second-year Christian college student, was stoned to death by a mob of Muslim students in Sokoto, Nigeria, after being accused of blasphemy against Islam. The state could not save her.
Religious vs secular
I have cited these cases among thousands to illustrate that encouraging individuals to express their religious beliefs in a manner that subjugates the constitution to their religion makes society vulnerable to the illogicalities that often arise when attempting to govern secular matters with spiritual principles.
Since the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, ideas and practices had been generated that made the secular world their point of departure. The Enlightenment philosophy did not necessarily deny the meaning or emotional hold of religion, but it gradually shifted attention away from religious questions toward secular ones.
Philosophers like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes grappled with the problem of religious diversity. The Enlightenment promoted the concept of religious liberty and a secular state to maintain peace and freedom. That was how Church (religion) and State were separated.
Any superimposition of theocratic injunctions over a secular state is a sure recipe for disaster.
