The Nigerian House of Representatives has voted down a bill that aimed to expand the constitutional scope of Islamic law in the country.
Sponsored by Aliyu Misau, the representative for Misau/Dambam Federal Constituency in Bauchi State, the bill sought amendments to sections 24, 262, 277, and 288 of the 1999 Constitution.
Misau proposed removing the word “personal” wherever it appears alongside “Islamic law” in these sections, intending to allow “Islamic law” to stand independently. He argued that this change would enable Islamic law to encompass commercial and international matters, not just personal issues such as family and estate disputes.
Currently, Section 262 (1) of the Constitution states, “The Sharia Court of Appeal shall, in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, exercise such appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic personal law.”
Misau contended that the inclusion of “personal” limits the application of Islamic law and does not accommodate developments like Islamic commercial banking, including institutions such as Jaiz Bank, which operate under Islamic commercial principles.
Misau argued that the word “personal” should be removed to allow for Islamic commercial and international law applications, reflecting the evolving economic landscape.
While the proposal received backing from some northern lawmakers, who supported the expansion of Islamic commercial law, it faced strong opposition from southern legislators.
Solomon Bob, representing Ahoada East/Abua/Odual Federal Constituency in Rivers State, opposed the bill, stating that removing “personal” would extend the application of Islamic law beyond personal matters, a scope that the drafters of the 1999 Constitution had not intended.
“The implication is that if the word ‘personal’ is removed, Islamic Law would have broader implications. The word ‘personal’ was put there for a reason,” Bob emphasized.
Lawmakers from both sides of the debate weighed in, with Abdulhakeem Ado, representing Wudil/Garko Federal Constituency in Kano State, supporting the bill and advocating for the recognition of Islamic commercial law in the constitution. Saidu Abdullahi and Ahmed Satomi, from Niger and Borno States respectively, also voiced support for the proposed amendment.
However, opposition remained firm among southern lawmakers, with Jonathan Gaza (Nasarawa), Ademorin Kuye (Lagos), and Awaji-Inombek Abiante (Rivers) standing against the bill.
PDP lawmaker Bamidele Salam from Osun State further cautioned that expanding the scope of Islamic law could endanger Nigeria’s secular balance. He reminded the House of the historical sensitivities surrounding this issue during previous constitutional assemblies in 1979, 1989, and 1999, when debates over the application of Islamic law required intervention to limit it to personal matters.
“At the 1979 Constitutional Assembly, this particular section was very contentious until the military intervened to halt further debate, stating that the application of Islamic law would be restricted to personal matters like estates,” Salam said. “We must be careful with any changes to the constitution that could further widen divisions in Nigeria. In any case, the matters my colleague seeks to address are already covered by existing laws.”
After a robust debate, the Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, called for a voice vote on the bill. The majority of lawmakers present opposed it, leading to the bill’s rejection. The decision underscores the complex balance Nigeria continues to maintain between religious and secular principles, with lawmakers emphasizing the need for caution in constitutional amendments that could impact this equilibrium.