Daniel Otera
The Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) has renewed its demand for the establishment of Shari’ah courts in all 36 states of Nigeria and the Federal Capital Territory, arguing that the current legal structure disproportionately favours Christian-based common law, leaving millions of Muslims outside the scope of judicial inclusion.
In a statement issued on Friday, 1 August 2025, MURIC’s Executive Director, Professor Ishaq Akintola, said the Federal Government must urgently address what he described as a constitutional and ethical imbalance in the nation’s judicial framework.
The 1999 Constitution (as amended) recognises three distinct legal traditions: common law, customary law, and Islamic (Shari’ah) law. Under Sections 275 to 279, state governments are empowered to establish Shari’ah Courts of Appeal if they deem it necessary. These courts primarily adjudicate on matters relating to personal status, marriage, inheritance, and civil disputes among Muslims.
As of 2024, 12 northern states among them Zamfara, Kano, Katsina, Sokoto, and Kaduna formally operate Shari’ah courts. These jurisdictions adopted the Islamic legal system between 1999 and 2002, enabling Muslim residents to seek justice in accordance with Islamic principles. By contrast, no state in southern Nigeria has legislated for Shari’ah courts, despite having significant Muslim populations.
A 2022 survey by NOI Polls revealed that 28 percent of Muslims in South-West Nigeria expressed interest in having Islamic courts handle civil and family matters. Respondents cited reasons such as religious obligation, cultural affinity, and perceived fairness in Islamic legal procedures. Groups like the Muslim Ummah of South West Nigeria (MUSWEN) have lobbied for these courts, but no state assemblies in the South have enacted relevant legislation.
Professor Akintola questioned why the Federal Government had established Federal High Courts in all states—even where state high courts already existed yet failed to ensure similar availability of Shari’ah courts across the country.
“The Federal Government has duplicated its judicial presence nationwide through Federal High Courts,” he said. “Why is the same not done for Shari’ah courts? Muslims across the federation accept common law. Why should Christians object to Shari’ah courts in Muslim communities outside the North?”
Akintola argued that the continued absence of Shari’ah courts in southern states amounts to institutional exclusion. He described it as both discriminatory and inconsistent with constitutional principles.
“We are looking at a justice system that accommodates one worldview nationwide but restricts another to a single region,” he added.
He also criticised the funding structure of the judiciary, noting that Muslims in states without Shari’ah courts still contribute taxes used to fund common law institutions they may not fully relate to.
“Justice funded by all should serve all,” he said.
The 2024 federal budget allocated ₦5.3 billion to capital projects under the Federal Ministry of Justice, including infrastructure and office equipment. An additional ₦8.8 billion was allocated for recurrent expenditures such as salaries and operational costs. However, no line items were included for expanding Shari’ah courts or similar religious court systems.
Section 275 of the Nigerian Constitution allows but does not compel any state to set up a Shari’ah Court of Appeal where it is “required.” This clause places full discretion with state assemblies. So far, only northern lawmakers have acted on that provision.
Legal scholars argue that Section 275 of the 1999 Constitution was designed to serve the justice needs of religious communities, not to be wielded by political majorities as a tool of exclusion. The clause allows states to establish Shari’ah courts “where desired,” which many experts interpret as a right that should be activated when there is clear demand, regardless of region.
This interpretation aligns with a February 2025 statement by Jama’atu Nasril Islam (JNI), led by the Sultan of Sokoto. The group emphasised that access to Shari’ah courts for civil and personal matters is a constitutional right under Sections 38 and 275–279 of the Nigerian Constitution, and not a privilege limited to any region.
“The right of Muslims to seek adjudication of personal and civil matters under Islamic law is not a privilege, but a constitutional right,” JNI Secretary-General Professor Khalid Abubakar Aliyu said, as reported by Daily Trust. “Sections 38 and 275–279 provide for the establishment and operation of Shari’a courts for civil matters where applicable.”
The debate over Shari’ah courts also touches on wider issues of legal representation, identity, and trust in state institutions. Communities that feel structurally excluded from the justice system often disengage from public life entirely.
While direct data on Shari’ah court access is limited, broader democratic indicators suggest a pattern of exclusion. Nigeria scored just 0.33 on the Participatory Democracy Index in 2023, according to data from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. The score, which reflects how much citizens influence public decision-making, places Nigeria well below the global average.
In a separate 2023 report, the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD) highlighted how religion and ethnicity continue to shape citizen mistrust in the country’s institutions. The report noted that perceptions of marginalisation—legal, religious, and ethnic—fuel disengagement from the democratic process.
Legal analysts say this mistrust extends to the judiciary, especially when certain communities feel their preferred legal systems are ignored or politicised.
“If justice is the soul of peace,” one observer said, “then meaningful inclusion of all constitutional legal systems, including Shari’ah, is not optional. It’s a matter of equity and federal balance.”