Abuja — Nigeria operates under two fundamentally different legal systems—Sharia law in many northern states and secular law elsewhere—creating a constitutional paradox that legal scholars warn threatens the sustainability of Nigerian federalism.
The question gaining urgency in legal and policy circles: How long can a country function when its constituent parts don't agree on basic legal principles?
Since several northern states adopted expanded Sharia law in the early 2000s, Nigeria has struggled with the tension between religious law and the secular constitution. The issue exploded into international consciousness with cases like the stoning death of Deborah Samuel Yakubu, a Christian student killed by fellow students in Sokoto State for alleged blasphemy.
But the constitutional challenge runs deeper than individual tragedies. "We have defacto created two different countries with distinct ideologies and different priorities," wrote one Nigerian analyst in an online discussion. "What's the point of the Nigerian constitution if it doesn't apply equally to all states?"
Professor Yusuf Dankofa, a constitutional law expert at Ahmadu Bello University in Zaria, cautions against oversimplification. "The Nigerian constitution explicitly allows states to establish Sharia courts for civil and personal matters among Muslims. The question isn't whether Sharia courts can exist—it's about their scope and when religious law conflicts with constitutional rights."
The federal structure was designed to accommodate Nigeria's diversity—over 250 ethnic groups and roughly equal Christian and Muslim populations. Allowing states to adopt religious law for personal matters was meant to respect religious practice while maintaining national unity.
But implementation has proven problematic. Some northern states have expanded Sharia beyond civil matters into criminal law, creating situations where actions legal under the federal constitution become capital crimes under state Sharia codes. Blasphemy, alcohol consumption, and adultery can carry death sentences in Sharia jurisdictions.
"The constitutional question is clear," said Femi Falana, a prominent Senior Advocate of Nigeria. "The Nigerian constitution is supreme. Any state law—religious or secular—that contradicts constitutional rights is invalid. The problem is enforcement."
Southern states, predominantly Christian and following secular law, view northern Sharia implementation with alarm. Many southern Nigerians see aggressive Sharia enforcement as incompatible with the federal republic they agreed to join. Northern Muslims, meanwhile, argue that imposing secular values violates their religious freedom and cultural autonomy.
"This isn't just legal theory," said Dr. Amina Mohammed, a northern Muslim scholar at the University of Abuja. "For many northern Muslims, Sharia represents cultural identity and religious obligation. Dismissing those concerns as incompatible with Nigerian unity ignores the reality that Nigeria was always meant to be a federation that respects diversity."
Yet diversity requires consensus on certain fundamentals. Can Nigeria function long-term when northerners and southerners fundamentally disagree on whether blasphemy should be a crime? When gender equality under the constitution conflicts with religious law on marriage and inheritance?
In Nigeria, as across Africa's giants, challenges are real but entrepreneurial energy and cultural creativity drive progress. But federalism's sustainability depends on more than entrepreneurialism—it requires political compromise and shared commitment to national unity.
The question isn't whether Sharia courts should exist—the constitution allows them. The question is whether Nigeria can establish clear boundaries that protect constitutional rights while respecting religious practice. That requires difficult conversations Nigerian politicians have mostly avoided.
"We need national dialogue on what Nigerian federalism actually means," said Falana. "What powers do states have? What rights are non-negotiable? Where does religious autonomy end and constitutional protection begin? These aren't rhetorical questions—they're existential ones."
Potential solutions exist. Countries like India maintain unified legal systems while accommodating religious diversity through personal status laws. Malaysia operates dual legal systems with clear jurisdictional boundaries. Whether Nigeria can craft a workable compromise depends on political will.
"The alternative to dialogue is drift," warned Professor Dankofa. "And drift, in a country as diverse and volatile as Nigeria, is dangerous. We either build consensus on federalism that works for all Nigerians, or we continue pretending two incompatible systems can coexist indefinitely. History suggests the latter isn't sustainable."
