With the many challenges confronting Nigeria today, every patriotic citizen ought to exercise great restraint with actions and statements capable of escalating an already volatile situation. The Christian Social Movement of Nigeria (CSMN) expresses this profound concern with respect to a recent statement credited to the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria (SCSN), to the effect that the Chairman of the Independent National Election Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Amupitan, should resign his appointment, describing him as a “a threat to the credibility of Nigeria’s democratic process.” The Supreme Council for Shari’ah further threatened that “Muslims would neither recognise nor legitimise any election conducted under Amupitan’s leadership,” citing what it described as “serious integrity and neutrality concerns.”
The President of the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria, Sheikh Bashir Umar, expressed that religious position in January during the Council’s 2026 Annual Pre-Ramadan Lecture and General Assembly in Abuja, themed “Nigeria’s Future: Faith, Justice, and Leadership.” Earlier, in December 2025, a coalition of 40 Islamic organisations under the Zamfara State Muslims League had held a press conference in which it criticised ‘external pressure’ on issues relating to Shari’ah and religious regulation in northern Nigeria. It argued that Shari’ah has constitutional backing as part of Nigeria’s plural legal system, which also recognises common law and customary law.
By raising the present concern, this Movement is neither holding brief for the Tinubu administration nor playing partisan politics, but merely insists that religious groups should not constitute themselves into promoters of injustice and inequality. In the past few years, religion has been used to devastate and degrade Nigeria. Reasonable efforts should rather be towards deescalating the tensions already created in the name of religion, not fanning the same terrible embers.
The President of the country, with the National Assembly, has powers to appoint a Chairman for INEC. In the recent past, President Goodluck Jonathan, a Christian, appointed Prof. Attahiru Jega, a Muslim, as the Chairman of INEC. Then, the honorable Shari’ah Council did not threaten to boycott elections. President Muhammadu Buhari, a Muslim, appointed Prof. Yakubu Mahmood, another Muslim, as INEC Chairman. Again, the Shari’ah Council did not threaten to boycott elections. Now, President Tinubu duly appoints Prof. Joash Amupitan as INEC Chairman and SCSN has suddenly found a voice, threatening to lead a Muslim boycott of elections. Would the Shari’ah Council have issued their present threat if it had been another Muslim from the North appointed as INEC Chairman? Peace-loving Nigerians know the answer.
The matter for which Prof. Amupitan is being labelled a threat to democracy is rather trivial. That citizen gave a legal opinion in his capacity as a legal practitioner, on a report that documented genocide against Christians in Nigeria. That opinion was no different from the campaign of the All Progressives Congress (APC), which went to the United States in 2014, interestingly during the presidency of Dr Goodluck Jonathan, to raise global alarm about Christians being “slaughtered” in Nigeria, which the same APC government is now denying for political expediency. Maybe the APC should also resign entirely from governance for being guiltier of the very act that a citizen is being sternly vilified.
It is clear that the Shari’ah Council’s objection to Prof. Amupitan’s appointment has nothing to do with his legal opinion but everything to do with his not being a northern Muslim, especially his being a Christian. It is to be assumed that the Shari’ah Council is fully aware that Section 38(1) of the tolerated 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of religious conviction to every citizen. Sadly, some Muslims, particularly some from Northern Nigeria, are of the divisive opinion that no Nigerian has a right to practice any religion except their brand. In a multicultural, multiethnic, and multireligious society, such intolerance unfortunately fuels destruction, such as the country is currently witnessing.
When officials of Islamic organizations are appointed to head national institutions, Christians and other non-Muslims do not complain or threaten the country. For example, Prof. Ishaq Oloyede, a professor of Islamic studies, is appointed to head the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) which does not only regulate Federal Government universities but Christian-majority-state universities, and even Church-owned universities. Prof. Oloyede is an official of the Nigerian Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) and a representative of NSCIA in the Nigerian Inter Religious Council (NIREC). In those capacities, he has made strong statements on behalf of Islam. That chief executive of JAMB also addressed a religious press conference of NSCIA in 2025, denying genocide against Christians in Nigeria. As an official of the Federal Government, in a multi-religious country, should he have been speaking at or taken a side on a contested religious issue in such a sectarian press conference? Christians did not call for his dismissal from JAMB on account of that performance. Also, Isa Ibrahim Pantami, whom President Buhari appointed as Minister for Communications, was alleged to have incited religious violence at the Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University (ATBU), Bauchi, while serving as Islamic lecturer and Chief Imam. He served his term as minister. With all of these, Nigerians can only conclude that the call by the Shari’ah Council for the dismissal of Prof. Amupitan is blatant religious bigotry.
As for the claim by the coalition of Islamic organisations under the Zamfara State Muslims League, that Sharia “has constitutional backing as part of Nigeria’s plural legal system, which also recognises common law and customary law,” the position of the law needs to be clarified. The reasons are as follows:
1. There are two types of Shariah laws: the “Sharia personal law” and the “Sharia criminal law”. What the law of the country approves is the Sharia personal law, which is the equivalent of the customary law; what is throwing the country into crisis, however, is the unapproved Sharia criminal law. Nigeria at no time approved the Sharia criminal law as it is currently being practiced in some parts of the country to ferment discord and destruction.
2. Sharia criminal law was inserted into the 1999 Constitution without national consensus. The 1999 Constitution itself does not pass the test of a valid sovereign document for Nigeria. It was neither negotiated nor approved by Nigerians. It was unilaterally imposed on the country by a Muslim Military Head of State who used his position to unjustly promote his religion above other religions in the country.
3. The position of legal luminaries in the country does not support the insertion of Sharia criminal law into the Constitution.
The matter of Sharia has been carefully examined by legal luminaries in the country, and some of them confirm as follows:
Professor Ben Nwabueze:
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the prohibition in section 10 of the Constitution stamps with an indelible taint of unconstitutionality, the Sharia criminal law, whether in its original form as contained in the Quran and the Sunnah or in a codified form to be enacted by the National Assembly or a State House of Assembly.”
Justice Mohammed Bello:
“Section 38(1) of the Constitution ensures for every person the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief, whereas under Sharia, ‘ridda’ (change of religion) is a capital offence. Consequently, the offence of ridda is inconsistent with Section 38(1) and by virtue of Section 1 is unconstitutional.”
Mr. Solomon Asemota, SAN:
“It is also very clear that Sharia cannot be enforced as state law, which was why the Sardauna took the trouble to ensure the passage of the Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure in 1960, which has the following features:
a. It was applicable to everybody in Northern Nigeria
b. It was internationally accepted and above all
c. It was Quran compliant.
There are few northerners who are passionate for the North as the Sardauna was, yet he gave the North the Penal Code. While the North practiced that Penal Code, it had peace, prosperity and progress. Departing from the Penal Code, it began to be engulfed with sorrow, death, poverty and destruction. The North has been the worst victim of its self-inflicted religious insurgency.
Attempts to deepen the religious imbalance when the country should be seeking healing and fairness will only drag it deeper into mutual suspicion and sectarian violence. Northern Nigeria might wish to take a cue from the South-West region of Nigeria, enjoying relative peace despite its religious plurality.
Instead of emphasizing what divides Nigeria, all citizens should jointly demand the decommissioning of the 1999 Constitution and the introduction of a new constitution for Nigeria, or at the least, a reversal to the 1963 Republican Constitution. A new constitution will benefit all Nigerians irrespective of religion or ethnic affiliation. We encourage the SCSN to join in the demand for a new constitution for the promotion of justice in the country, rather than demand the resignation of a government official in a tone that smacks unpleasantly of religious intolerance.
God bless Nigeria
For, and on behalf of, Christian Social Movement of Nigeria (CSMN),
Signed
Elder Sunday Oibe
Chairman, Governing Council
Bosun Emmanuel
CEO
9th February 2026