Wow, someone is about to solve the Osun robe debacle

One of President Buhari’s critics told me yesterday that the chickens some of his advisers hatched have come home to roost. Distractions are beginning to come from every angle.

Last Monday, one Dr Nwankwo Nwaezeigwe dragged President Buhari to a Federal High Court in Asaba. Also joined as defendants are the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Buhari’s government is being accused of trying to Islamize the country, and the plaintiff claims that this is against the country’s constitution. The plaintiff argues that some actions the President has taken violates Section 10 of the country’s constitution, which proclaims Nigeria as a Secular State.

Nwaezeigwe argues that by dragging the country into various Islamic coalitions and by soliciting for loans from Islamic banks, in the form of SUKUK bonds, government has violated the secular tenets of the country’s constitution.

As a patriotic Nigerian, I would have preferred such court cases never came up. I believe the President should have been left to concentrate on bringing millions of Nigerians out of poverty. There is poverty everywhere you look in the land. But, one of the President’s critics told me that the President started this. This critic believes that the prosecution of the Senate President and his deputy would surely bring distractions of this nature- he has drawn a nexus between these two cases.

Even though it has been argued, by some, that the President has no hand in the prosecution of Saraki and Ekweremadu, some critics believe that a cabal is influencing the President. The Senate President even said this yesterday.

But is there really any connection here? The plaintiff says he is suing on behalf of himself and an organization researching on Nigeria’s Civil War and genocide.

The plaintiff has made an implicit assumption in his case. He says that Nigeria is a Secular State. Luckily, this lawsuit will answer this fundamental question of secularism, maybe at the Supreme Court.

By the way, what is a Secular State? Basically, a Secular State is one that would not base its laws with regards to the economy, education, health, etc. to any particular religion. This definition could have many variants.

Interestingly, Section 10 of constitution doesn’t mention the word secular, but says, ‘’The Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State Religion’’. At the same time, the constitution also states that everyone is allowed to choose and follow his or her preferred religion.

Since government hasn’t clarified this section, and has left the interpretation to lawyers, Nwaezeigwe’s suit would likely force the hand of government, as it were. There are so many questions this suit could resolve, though these questions are not new.

The first one is on the issue of recognized prayers.  Should Nigeria observe only the prayers of the two major religions in public and government events? Should Nigeria sponsor pilgrimages for only two religions? Does it even have to sponsor it in the first place? Proponents of secularism argue that by allowing these prayers in government functions, government is inadvertently recognizing these religions as official religions.

Also, there is the issue of finance. I believe that there is nothing wrong in granting licenses to Islamic banks. Since we have freedom of religion, one doesn’t need to discriminate against any organization which is faith based. But, there is one question which this suit has to answer, ultimately.  Should any of these banks need a bailout, can government use tax payers’ money to save them. This question is apt because some proponents of secularism argue that government shouldn’t finance any religious based venture.

Since the plaintiff says that soliciting for Islamic bonds to fund the 2016 deficit budget is a violation of Section 10, this suit would have to answer questions on investing in sharia related organizations and soliciting for sharia related bonds. Considering the recent downgrade of Nigeria’s credit status, some would have been overjoyed to see an organization lend money to Nigeria. But the plaintiff has an issue with this.

The recent ruling that the wearing of hijab in schools is legal and appropriate would also be clarified at the Supreme Court, as a result of Nwaezeigwe’s suit. Interestingly, a Lagos Court had ruled that prohibiting the wearing of hijab over school uniforms was not discriminatory. A judge in Lagos had earlier said that government must maintain neutrality at all times because Nigeria is a Secular State, according to the constitution. Thus, the question whether a Secular State can enforce such court ruling in Osun would be settled by Nwaezeigwe’s suit.

Some believe that Nigeria is a Secular State only in paper, while others argue it is at best a quasi-secular one. For example, a country like France which claims to be a Secular State has banned the use of religious symbols in public spaces and the wearing of hijab.

Interestingly, America is recognized as a Secular State, but still uses the official symbol of ‘’In God We Trust’’. But, the argument here is simple, scholar say: there is no mention of any particular God. Interesting, isn’t it? The country has banned religious practices in public places.

Something tells me that this case against Buhari would be pursued with vigor by the people who have instigated it – unlike other cases which has attempted to seek clarification of Section 10. I assume they would pursue their case to any level. This court case has provoked all kinds of discussions.

Ultimately, a clarification of Section 10 of the constitution, or an amendment as it were, will put paid to most of our religious problems in Nigeria. God Bless Nigeria!