In Nigeria’s south-western states of Ogun, Osun, Ondo, Ekiti, Oyo, and Lagos, the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs intends to establish Shari’a arbitration panels. These panels are meant to settle disagreements between agreeable Muslims in accordance with Islamic law. Advocates contend that the panels are constitutionally protected under religious freedom and stress that they are voluntary and do not serve as courts. State governments, Christian leaders, traditional leaders, and cultural groups have all opposed the panels, citing worries that they will disrupt Peace and undermine current legal frameworks.
Despite resistance from the administration, the Shari’a panel met for the first time in Ekiti. To keep the peace, the Ewi of Ado Ekiti and the state’s attorney general disbanded the panel. However, supporters contend that the panels only benefit Muslims who voluntarily participate and do not break any laws. The panel’s planned inauguration in Oyo State has been delayed due to opposition. In Lagos, Osun, and other places, similar panels are already in place; some have been in operation for decades without any issues. Muslim leaders have explained that the panels differ from official Shari’a courts in that they concentrate on private issues such as Marriage and inheritance.
Shari’a panels settle conflicts between Muslims according to Islamic law.
Fears of religious imbalance have been used by Christian leaders and organisations like Afenifere and the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria to oppose the panels. Advocates claim the panels are constitutional, peaceful, and analogous to other Christian or conventional arbitration processes. As suggested in the South-Western areas of Nigeria, Sharia arbitration panels are voluntary processes for settling conflicts between Muslims in accordance with Islamic law. These panels deal with private issues such as marriage, inheritance, and interpersonal conflicts; they provide advice rather than binding court rulings. Formal courts are state or federal courts with legally enforceable rulings; in contrast, arbitration panels are informal forums where parties voluntarily agree to settle disputes.
It is important to note that participation in these panels is optional and that their rulings are not binding unless both parties agree. Similar procedures are present in Christian organisations, where internal tribunals settle problems pertaining to the church without interfering with the public legal system. These panels might lessen opposition and dispel misconceptions by highlighting their volunteer character. Because of the region’s unique religious concord, Yoruba Culture is firmly based in a fusion of traditional, Christian, and Islamic customs. Traditionally, Yoruba households have been known to practise Islam, Christianity, and traditional beliefs all at the same time.
How can the panels function without upsetting Yoruba unity?
This coexistence has created a setting in which disagreements are customarily settled by discussion, frequently facilitated by community leaders or family elders. Some may view the establishment of religious arbitration panels as a break from this integrated heritage. These panels’ detractors, including the Yoruba Cultural Renaissance Advocates, contend that they could compromise the collective method to resolving disputes by prioritising religious division over common cultural values. It is necessary to illustrate how the panels can function without upsetting Yoruba unity in order to allay these worries.
Other nations have seen varying degrees of success with Shari’a arbitration tribunals. In the UK, for example, Shari’a councils have been in place since the 1980s, mostly to settle family conflicts between British Muslims. They have received recognition for offering culturally aware solutions, but detractors contend that occasionally there is little supervision, which gives rise to charges of gender bias. On the other hand, Indonesia, the nation with the biggest Muslim population, incorporates Islamic arbitration into its official legal system, providing unambiguous guidelines for settling conflicts without jeopardising social cohesion.
Related Article: Leaders warn sharia law would spark unrest
Religious liberty and the creation of arbitration panels are safeguarded under the Nigerian Constitution. Every citizen’s freedom to freely practise and express their faith is protected under Section 38. Furthermore, the Nigerian Arbitration and Conciliation Act recognises arbitration as a method of resolving disputes. If both parties agree, this statute permits private organisations to settle disputes outside of the legal system. But because formal Shari’a courts need legislative support under Sections 277–278 of the Constitution, which applies mostly in northern areas, the panels’ designation as Shari’a courts has increased opposition. Legal and societal issues could be addressed by renaming these panels as arbitration bodies and making sure they don’t take on judicial functions.