House Of Representatives Rejects Bill To Expand Islamic Law In Constitution

The House of Representatives has rejected a bill proposing the expansion of Islamic law in the 1999 constitution.

The bill, sponsored by Aliyu Missau, aimed to amend specific sections of the constitution by removing the term “personal” from wherever “Islamic law” is mentioned, thus broadening the scope of Sharia law within the legal framework.

The contentious constitutional amendment bill targeted sections 24, 262, 277, and 288 of the 1999 constitution.

Specifically, Section 262(1), which currently states that the Sharia Court of Appeal shall exercise appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic personal law, would have been modified to expand its jurisdiction beyond personal matters.

Missau argued during the debate that the inclusion of the word “personal” limited the application of Islamic law, particularly affecting Islamic commercial laws.

By removing “personal,” Missau believed that Islamic law could have a broader application, aligning more closely with the comprehensive nature of Sharia, which covers various aspects of life beyond personal matters.

He said, “The 1999 constitution provided for personal Islamic law. The constitution did not envisage the dynamism and development that may come into the country.

“For instance, in 2003, the constitution did not foresee the advent of Jaiz Bank, which operates under commercial Islamic law.”

The lawmaker said the word “personal” should be removed to benefit Islamic commercial law and Islamic international law, among others.

During the debate, legislators were split along regional lines, with northerners supporting the bill while their southern counterparts kicked against it.

Opposing the bill, Solomon Bob from Rivers said the amendment would broaden the application of Islamic law beyond the “personal matters” envisaged by the framers of the constitution.

“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,” the lawmaker said.

AbdulHakeem Ado from Kano supported the bill, saying Islamic commercial law needs to be sustained.

Saidu Abdullahi from Niger state and Ahmed Satomi from Borno were among the lawmakers who spoke in favour of the bill.

Jonathan Gaza from Nasarawa, Ademorin Kuye from Lagos, and Awaji-Inombek Abiante from Rivers kicked against the proposed legislation.

Bamidele Salam from Osun strongly opposed the bill, saying issues of religion should be restricted to personal preference because Nigeria is a secular state.

He said, “As students of history, we all know the background of this particular section during the various constitutional assemblies of 1979, 1989, and 1999. The drafters of the constitution were highly sensitive to religion.

“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.

“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.”

The bill was rejected when it was put to a voice vote by Ben Kalu, the deputy speaker, who presided over the plenary.